Las Vegas Coytoes?

[rams80]

I have a simple solution for Icecap and the other Canadian posters who disapprove of Bettman and the NHL. Stop giving money to them. Period. The spending of money on a sports team implicitly means you approve of their practices, and yet you clearly don't. Until the NHL teams start taking a hit in the checkbook, they will carry on as normal.

[IceCap]

I don't go to any NHL games and I haven't bought a jersey since the EDGE was introduced. So, um, yeah. I mean I could start actively stealing from the NHL, but short of that, well they aren't getting any of my money as is anyway.

[rams80]

I don't go to any NHL games and I haven't bought a jersey since the EDGE was introduced. So, um, yeah. I mean I could start actively stealing from the NHL, but short of that, well they aren't getting any of my money as is anyway.

Get your friends and family to join in. Stop watching the games on TV to cut into advertising revenue.

[STL FANATIC]

Do 2 situations really constitute "continuing behavior"?

The Coyotes drew decently if not great for their first few years, too. But as the "one and dones" became a trend, and as they sold off fan favorites, fans didn't stick. The Coyotes took the wrong approach. They carried over a playoff contending team from Winnipeg, which is a GREAT start for a new franchise, but beyond signing Tony Amonte (and that was a big flop), they made very little effort to be more than that. They never made the effort to be a Cup contender. It's great that they made the playoffs, but with 16 teams in every year, all they really did was embrace mediocrity. The fans did not.

And then for the past 6 years, including a lockout to take them off everyone's mind, they've been crummy, crummy, crummy. In 13 years, they've never even tempted potential fans with a near Cup run, and they're still years from doing so, although they're close to go about it the right way now.

Build this team, the fans will come.

You wasted a paragraph defending against my sarcasm , which you apparently recognized but still felt compelled to defend. But in any case, why do I seem to be on the side of defending these teams from moving?

Well it's not because I hate Canada. It's not because I view the Blues as being part of this "down-south" group, nor that it helps the Blues in anyway.

It's because I've always been a steadfast believer in fixing something instead of bailing on it. It's why I'll root for a player that's playing crummy to start playing better instead of begging the team to ship him out.

If it's fixable, and the benefits of it being fixed are high, the effort should be on fixing it, not taking the easy way out and moving it to a low risk/low reward location (KC would be one place where the risk and reward might be a little higher).

You don't believe it's fixable, or perhaps believe that the reward can't possibly be worth another few years of monetary losses. That's fine, I disagree.

But if you really believe I'm just defending them because I have some Pro- Hockey in the South agenda, you couldn't be more wrong.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I can't think of a single bigger thing a team can do to attract new NHL fans than to get Wayne Gretzky on board. You have the only well known hockey player to casual fans -- the Michael Jordan and Babe Ruth of hockey -- showing up night after night, and you still don't draw?

At that point, it's over.

[STL FANATIC]

I can't think of a single bigger thing a team can do to attract new NHL fans than to get Wayne Gretzky on board. You have the only well known hockey player to casual fans -- the Michael Jordan and Babe Ruth of hockey -- showing up night after night, and you still don't draw?

At that point, it's over.

It's not like he's on the ice. He's doing a mediocre job coaching. That wouldn't reel me into any games.

No, I've got a bigger thing they can do. Contend for a Cup. GIMMICKS DON'T BUILD A FANBASE.

[Shmee]

The argument that fixing is better than bailing changes when the organization in question is a bona fide money hole. $300 million has to come from somewhere, and if the Coyotes ownership can't afford to run the team anymore, then that is a legitimate concern for the NHL. If Jim Balsillie is willing to buy a completely broken franchise... and all he wants to do is let them play in a city and arena where they'll make money, the NHL should think of this as a gift. Sure he's brash and defiant to Bettman, but this guy is a hockey fan, wants a hockey team, and wants them to succeed. Where is the problem here? If the owners really think Phoenix is such a great market, then I'm sure one of them will just jump at the chance to move HIS team there. This is a very uncertain time for sports... attendance, sponsorship, and income are all down. The age of cities clamoring to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at teams in the form of venues is coming to an end.

STL FANATIC, remember what you said when MLS didn't give St. Louis the expansion team you think it deserves so badly. There's a guy, with money, who wants to take the risk. Where's the problem?

[STL FANATIC]

STL FANATIC, remember what you said when MLS didn't give St. Louis the expansion team you think it deserves so badly. There's a guy, with money, who wants to take the risk. Where's the problem?

I don't follow.

[rams80]

The argument that fixing is better than bailing changes when the organization in question is a bona fide money hole. $300 million has to come from somewhere, and if the Coyotes ownership can't afford to run the team anymore, then that is a legitimate concern for the NHL. If Jim Balsillie is willing to buy a completely broken franchise... and all he wants to do is let them play in a city and arena where they'll make money, the NHL should think of this as a gift. Sure he's brash and defiant to Bettman, but this guy is a hockey fan, wants a hockey team, and wants them to succeed. Where is the problem here? If the owners really think Phoenix is such a great market, then I'm sure one of them will just jump at the chance to move HIS team there. This is a very uncertain time for sports... attendance, sponsorship, and income are all down. The age of cities clamoring to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at teams in the form of venues is coming to an end.

STL FANATIC, remember what you said when MLS didn't give St. Louis the expansion team you think it deserves so badly. There's a guy, with money, who wants to take the risk. Where's the problem?

For what it's worth, it appears that Moyes may have juggled the books to make the Coyotes look likw a bigger money hole than they actually are.

[The_Admiral]

It's because I've always been a steadfast believer in fixing something instead of bailing on it. It's why I'll root for a player that's playing crummy to start playing better instead of begging the team to ship him out.

If it's fixable, and the benefits of it being fixed are high, the effort should be on fixing it, not taking the easy way out and moving it to a low risk/low reward location (KC would be one place where the risk and reward might be a little higher).

You don't believe it's fixable, or perhaps believe that the reward can't possibly be worth another few years of monetary losses. That's fine, I disagree.

By taking this high-minded and idealistic "because that's what I've always believed in life! " approach, you're actually more aligned, ideologically speaking, with the crowd of "I think they should put a team in Quebec City JUST BECAUSE IT FEELS RIGHT" and so forth, rather than pragmatically realizing that the ship is sunk?

[STL FANATIC]

It's because I've always been a steadfast believer in fixing something instead of bailing on it. It's why I'll root for a player that's playing crummy to start playing better instead of begging the team to ship him out.

If it's fixable, and the benefits of it being fixed are high, the effort should be on fixing it, not taking the easy way out and moving it to a low risk/low reward location (KC would be one place where the risk and reward might be a little higher).

You don't believe it's fixable, or perhaps believe that the reward can't possibly be worth another few years of monetary losses. That's fine, I disagree.

By taking this high-minded and idealistic "because that's what I've always believed in life! " approach, you're actually more aligned, ideologically speaking, with the crowd of "I think they should put a team in Quebec City JUST BECAUSE IT FEELS RIGHT" and so forth, rather than pragmatically realizing that the ship is sunk?

Um. No.

If I were convinced the team couldn't be successful in Phoenix, I wouldn't be arguing for it. I think a well-run team would be very successful in Phoenix.

And because I believe that, I think the solution is to start running the team well, rather than to move it.

[The_Admiral]

Nice solution: "hey, stop failing." Any other bankruptcies you'd like to save?

[DEAD!]

Nice solution: "hey, stop failing." Any other bankruptcies you'd like to save?

General Motors? Six Flags? Iceland?

[The_Admiral]

Which CCSLC-supplied solution would be worse, "Iceland should stop being bad at things" or "Iceland should get more people to visit by changing its name to Iceland of Anaheim"?

Iceland should trade names with Greenland, because Greenland is icy and Iceland is green. Then Iceland should trade names with the Utah Jazz.

[STL FANATIC]

Nice solution: "hey, stop failing." Any other bankruptcies you'd like to save?

Like that's what I actually said.

But hey, that's your schtick. Post off-beat sarcastic comments, contribute just a little, and be TCR. Well done.

[The_Admiral]

There are so many things wrong with the current situation, from management to the market, that there's no way they can turn this thing around. Not with these people, and not in this place. Fixing this organization is going to be a huge undertaking, one that may need to be done somewhere else, because there's no money coming in in Phoenix, and there never will be. Not only is it a shaky sports town owing to its population patterns and relative newness of its teams, it's looking like the economy is going to be shaky as well. Being a distant fourth among professional teams in an area where most professional teams don't draw well is untenable, fullstop. There's no sense in being stubborn about this thing and giving nebulous ideas like "I think they should fix things instead of giving up!" It's past fixing.

[STL FANATIC]

No it's not. A reworked lease and a contending hockey club would do the trick.

[Shmee]

STL FANATIC, remember what you said when MLS didn't give St. Louis the expansion team you think it deserves so badly. There's a guy, with money, who wants to take the risk. Where's the problem?

I don't follow.

Rich guy wants a (soccer/hockey) team. Rich guy wants said (soccer/hockey) team to play in a city of his choosing. Said city is a (soccer/hockey) hotbed.

When it was St. Louis and there was a legitimate question over whether said rich guy actually had the resources to open up shop on a professional sports franchise, you cried out that there was a vendetta against the owner and the city by the league. Jim Balsillie has no shortage of resources and wants to move a team from a fail(ed/ing) market to one where there is no doubt it will be successful. Why don't you support Hamilton getting their team?

For the record, I think all this posturing on the part of Bettman is an act. He needs to fight this for a few reasons... to maintain the power of the commissioner's office, to reassure cities that their teams won't be moved at the drop of a hat, and really just to keep the NHL in the public eye. Behind closed doors, I think he's secretly thanking the gods that there's someone willing to pay premium money for such a colossal failure of a franchise in this economy.

[The_Admiral]

No it's not. A reworked lease and a contending hockey club would do the trick.

Why are you so confident that a city of transplants, hit hard by the housing bubble, with an arena in what's apparently a far-flung suburb (I still don't get this one), will rush to embrace hockey as soon as they start winning again? And again, the Thomas Friedman thing: how much "contending" is necessary? Is that retroactively decided? So if they win the first round and bow out in the second and there's still no interest, do they need a conference finals appearance to undo the bad years? What if they win the Stanley Cup and nobody cares? Do they need a dynasty? Every team will briefly draw well enough when the team is winning. They need to do a lot more than that, and I don't think the market is there.

[STL FANATIC]

STL FANATIC, remember what you said when MLS didn't give St. Louis the expansion team you think it deserves so badly. There's a guy, with money, who wants to take the risk. Where's the problem?

I don't follow.

Rich guy wants a (soccer/hockey) team. Rich guy wants said (soccer/hockey) team to play in a city of his choosing. Said city is a (soccer/hockey) hotbed.

When it was St. Louis and there was a legitimate question over whether said rich guy actually had the resources to open up shop on a professional sports franchise, you cried out that there was a vendetta against the owner and the city by the league. Jim Balsillie has no shortage of resources and wants to move a team from a fail(ed/ing) market to one where there is no doubt it will be successful. Why don't you support Hamilton getting their team?

For the record, I think all this posturing on the part of Bettman is an act. He needs to fight this for a few reasons... to maintain the power of the commissioner's office, to reassure cities that their teams won't be moved at the drop of a hat, and really just to keep the NHL in the public eye. Behind closed doors, I think he's secretly thanking the gods that there's someone willing to pay premium money for such a colossal failure of a franchise in this economy.

Okay, I get your parallel. I don't really think they're similar situations though. The St. Louis owner did have the resources to successful operate a franchise (or at least that was/sort is my stance), but he very clearly would have been one of the less wealthy owners in the league. He also never did anything to cause any negative reaction from the league. My stance that they were against St. Louis was more that they were willing to string St. Louis along in order to ultimately gain for other bids, weathlier bids, which they always intended to go with.

Balsillie is super rich and has given the league reason to doubt his ability to be a team player.

In fact, to show how I felt about the MLS situation, I actually believe the MLS would hand over a franchise to Balsillie in the blink of an eye, because they're attracted by the wallet of a potential owner more than any other factor.

The NHL is clearly operating with other factors in mind.