Las Vegas Coytoes?

[STL FANATIC]

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.

They need to have a 3-5 year stretch where they are seriously consider CUP CONTENDERS, not just playoff teams. They need to make the third round a couple times, a Cup Final or Championship would be gravy. And they need to make the second round at least in the other years.

And then they can't just drop off the face of the earth and start all over. They have to continue to try to win, to be playoff contenders, until they can go on another run at the Cup.

Hockey as bad as they've had in Phoenix the last few years would have a number of markets in jeopardy, including my beloved St. Louis. It in fact was after just 2-3 years (and the lockout...that was a huge factor here anyways), but they got things turned around and the fans came back.

In Phoenix case, they don't necessarily have a fanbase to comeback, so it will take a little longer to build.

It's doable, though.

I think the attendance patterns of the Suns and Diamondbacks establish that showing that market really good teams and then being consistently competitive is the right way to build and maintain a fanbase. And like most markets anywhere, when the teams are just terrible, well then fans aren't gonna come anyways.

[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.

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

To be honest, you might be onto something. I mean the OHL is pretty damn entertaining.....

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.

They do when you're so vocal about saving a team in a huge money pit that the locals don't even seem to really care for. At least when we were doing this song and dance with Nashville the sports fans got peeved and rallied to save their team. Here all I'm seeing from the Phoenix sports fanbase is a collective "meh" on the prospect of the Coyotes leaving. Like TCR said, you're trying harder to make Phoenix look like a doable NHL market then the NHL's lawyers are in court.

I wasted a paragraph defending against your sarcasm because it was flawed sarcasm. Sarcastic pot shots only work when there's some measure of truth behind it. There was none in yours. I am not against southern pro hockey.

Look, I see where you're coming from, and I would agree with you if this was seven years ago. It's not though. We're 13 years in, and the money pit's getting deeper and deeper. I agree, the team should stay as long as the situation is fixable. For a variety of reasons, however, I believe the NHL and the Coyotes are past that point. It's beyond fixable. That's the crux of my argument, and it would seem the source of our disagreement.

Now something that has been bugging me for a while now....

In that HNiC interview with Gary Bettman he said he didn't want to see Winnipeg and Quebec City move. Now all other reasons to call BS! aside, I'll just bring this up. When the Penguins were seriously ready to walk away from Pittsburgh and start talks with KC Bettman personally travelled to Pittsburgh, sat the Pens reps and the city reps down, and forced a compromise. Where was this zeal for saving teams when the Jets and Nords had arena troubles with their cities Mr. Bettman?

[Brian in Boston]

Of course Gary Bettman is the employee of the collective NHL ownership. Yes, they pay his salary. I never doubted that. That's a well-established fact.

Well, it's nice to see that something made its way through the protective layers provided by your tin-foil hat.

What I'm saying is that you need to look at what the NHL ownership employees him to do. Do they employ him (or, in theory, anyone else in the future who may be NHL Commissioner) to simply be a spokesman for the policies and decisions they as a group come up with? Hardly.

There are certainly areas of responsibility in which the NHL's commissioner is offered a considerable amount of executive latitude. Disciplinary matters. Scenarios in which a decision has to be made between two individual NHL owners/franchises.

That said, you'd be surprised at just how valuable the NHL's commissioner is as a "spokesman for the policies and decisions they (NHL owners) as a group come up with". After all, fans such as yourself are clearly gulled into accepting Bettman as the source of all of the ills that plague the NHL. As a result, the league's owners escape facing the vast amount of wrath coming from the fan-base. Truth be told, you'd be shocked to learn just how many NHL owners believe that Bettman earns a good deal of his salary as commissioner simply by serving as said owners' convenient shield from fan anger.

To hire someone at that salary to just be the spokesman of your club/partnership/collective ownership is a huge waste of money.

He's more than a spokesman; he's the all-too-convenient "boogeyman" that fans such as yourself beat-up on while largely - if not completely - ignoring the NHL owners' culpability in any stumblings that plague the league on their watch.

What does that say to me? It says the NHL owners hire him to make decisions.

As I've previously outlined, Bettman can - and does - "make decisions" in areas such as discipline, team-versus-team disputes, etc. However, I have news for you: in areas such as expansion-versus no expansion, or where expansion franchises are granted and existing franchises are relocated, it is the owners decision that counts. Period. If you think that the owners are ultimately following anyone's counsel but their own on such weighty matters, you are sorely mistaken. Bettman isn't talking the owners into expanding if said owners don't want to expand. Bettman isn't convincing them to expand into so-called "non-traditional" markets if said owners don't want to expand the NHL's footprint to begin with. Bettman isn't blocking the relocation of an NHL franchise if the league's owners are in favor of relocating said franchise. Bettman doesn't have that kind of power.

He impacts NHL policy just as much as the owners who hire him.

No, he doesn't. The NHL's owners are ultimately calling the shots. The owners make policy... Bettman implements policy.

The NHL's owners are the employers in this scenario. They control the league's goings-on... including when, where and why Mr. Bettman can be relieved of his job. Period.

[Brian in Boston]

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?

Yes, and Michael Jordan did wonders for the Wizards and Bobcats. Ditto for Babe Ruth with the Boston Braves.

If Wayne Gretzky were in his prime and skating a regular shift, you might have had an argument.

[Brian in Boston]

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?

To be fair to STL FANATIC, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Jeff Cooper was seeking an expansion franchise for St. Louis. He wasn't involved in taking an existing franchise away from another market. His ultimate inability to secure said franchise was based upon MLS concluding that his ownership group didn't possess enough capital.

By contrast, Mr. Balsillie - in the face of the NHL not currently being in an expansion mode - has sought, on repeated occasions, to acquire existing NHL franchises with an eye towards ultimately relocating them from the markets in which they were operating. While Mr. Balsillie certainly seems to have more than enough capital at his disposal, his inability to secure a franchise has been based upon the NHL concluding that they don't want a prospective owner deciding to relocate a team without approval from his fellow owners.

[-kj]

The situations aren't really congruous, but not for the reasons STL tried to show.

The MLS situation is an expansion team. The NHL situation is an existing team with existing owners, contracts, league obligations, etc.

In the end, of course, you're all just going to sit around saying "but it's right because I said it is and I'm going to keep saying the same thing until you chage your mind"... so carry on.

[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?

Yes, and Michael Jordan did wonders for the Wizards and Bobcats. Ditto for Babe Ruth with the Boston Braves.

If Wayne Gretzky were in his prime and skating a regular shift, you might have had an argument.

But Jordan doesn't play for the Bobcats and doesn't appear on the courts. And while the Wizards didn't win games, they did sell every game Jordan played in.

And the Babe Ruth comparison isn't fair. The average American knows exactly one hockey player -- Wayne Gretzky. Babe Ruth wasn't as big a deal by the time he was with the Braves, and there were any number of other stars baseball fans could pay to see, including those on the Boston Red Sox.

Sure, Gretzky making Phoenix the Los Angeles of 2009 would be great, but that's not what I'm saying. Inasmuch as the NHL has a draw for the casual fan, the chance to see Gretzky is it. And Phoenix still blew it.

[IceCap]

Of course Gary Bettman is the employee of the collective NHL ownership. Yes, they pay his salary. I never doubted that. That's a well-established fact.

Well, it's nice to see that something made its way through the protective layers provided by your tin-foil hat.

I don't know if this was in jest or not, so I'll just say get bent and apologize later if it's needed.

What I'm saying is that you need to look at what the NHL ownership employees him to do. Do they employ him (or, in theory, anyone else in the future who may be NHL Commissioner) to simply be a spokesman for the policies and decisions they as a group come up with? Hardly.

There are certainly areas of responsibility in which the NHL's commissioner is offered a considerable amount of executive latitude. Disciplinary matters. Scenarios in which a decision has to be made between two individual NHL owners/franchises.

That said, you'd be surprised at just how valuable the NHL's commissioner is as a "spokesman for the policies and decisions they (NHL owners) as a group come up with". After all, fans such as yourself are clearly gulled into accepting Bettman as the source of all of the ills that plague the NHL. As a result, the league's owners escape facing the vast amount of wrath coming from the fan-base. Truth be told, you'd be shocked to learn just how many NHL owners believe that Bettman earns a good deal of his salary as commissioner simply by serving as said owners' convenient shield from fan anger.

So essentially you're saying that Mr. Bettman, serving as a scapegoat for the NHL ownership's decisions, makes him valuable to said ownership. I have a couple of problems with that....

I'm not exactly saying you're wrong, just that if you are right then that really doesn't change my outlook regarding the NHL's current state of existence. So what if Bettman's just a scapegoat? Does that make the decisions coming from the NHL's ownership any better? No, I'm still upset about them. If that means redirecting my anger at the collective NHL ownership group rather then Mr. Bettman, so be it.

You going "Bettman's just a scapegoat" isn't going to change my mind on, say, where the Coyotes should end up. It's an academic point, nothing more.

What does that say to me? It says the NHL owners hire him to make decisions.

As I've previously outlined, Bettman can - and does - "make decisions" in areas such as discipline, team-versus-team disputes, etc. However, I have news for you: in areas such as expansion-versus no expansion, or where expansion franchises are granted and existing franchises are relocated, it is the owners decision that counts. Period. If you think that the owners are ultimately following anyone's counsel but their own on such weighty matters, you are sorely mistaken. Bettman isn't talking the owners into expanding if said owners don't want to expand. Bettman isn't convincing them to expand into so-called "non-traditional" markets if said owners don't want to expand the NHL's footprint to begin with. Bettman isn't blocking the relocation of an NHL franchise if the league's owners are in favor of relocating said franchise. Bettman doesn't have that kind of power.

Does he have that kind of power? No. Does he have influence over their decisions? Yes. He's said a couple of times that he gives his opinion to the owners regarding certain situations, including this whole Phoenix question. You're biggest bragging right is "I used to be a sports reporter, and through interviews I've conducted this is how it works" yet I've read a good deal of pieces by sports reporters who paint the picture that Bettman does have some sway over the owners on matters such as franchise relocation and where expansion teams are placed.

Here's what I see. The collective NHL ownership wanted to expand the league into a national (ie American) venture on the same level as the NBA, NFL, and MLB. They took steps toward this goal in the early 90's, but they believed they needed someone who didn't fit the traditional NHL mindset to really make it work. Enter Gary Bettman, who's past employment with the NBA made him a suitable choice to direct the NHL in the are of national expansion. Seeing as they were hiring him for this purpose they probably allow him more leeway then they normally would, as his being there is to accomplish the goal of national NHL expansion.

He impacts NHL policy just as much as the owners who hire him.

No, he doesn't. The NHL's owners are ultimately calling the shots. The owners make policy... Bettman implements policy.

If that's the case, why have a commissioner? Why not hire, say, a NHL press secretary to announce ownership decisions? I'm sure that position would cost the NHL ownership less then paying someone to be a, according to you, puppet league head.

The NHL's owners are the employers in this scenario. They control the league's goings-on... including when, where and why Mr. Bettman can be relieved of his job. Period.

Again, did I ever say this wasn't the case? What I'm saying is look at what they are employing him to do. Be the league's executive, and specifically in Bettman's case, be a force for national (American) expansion.

On the topic of Mr. Bettman and his role in the NHL and the location of its teams, I'll bring this up again.

Now something that has been bugging me for a while now....

In that HNiC interview with Gary Bettman he said he didn't want to see Winnipeg and Quebec City move. Now all other reasons to call BS! aside, I'll just bring this up. When the Penguins were seriously ready to walk away from Pittsburgh and start talks with KC Bettman personally travelled to Pittsburgh, sat the Pens reps and the city reps down, and forced a compromise. Where was this zeal for saving teams when the Jets and Nords had arena troubles with their cities Mr. Bettman?

[IceCap]

*A new post due to quote tag limits*

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.

Clearly they are. Though it's downright idiotic for them to do so.

You have a NHL team which has lost $400 million in 13 years. A sport which is not as popular as football, baseball, or basketball in the States, and a league that is closer to being a niche league then a major player. So unpopular sport, unpopular team, and the economy absolutely sucks.

And still you have Jim Balsillie willing to pay over $200+ million for said franchise in what is essentially a down payment, and pay hundreds of millions of dollars more if needed for territorial fees. The fact that there's someone out there willing to pay this much money for a NHL franchise in both its and the economy's current state should have the NHL ownership doing cartwheels.

[rams80]

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?

Yes, and Michael Jordan did wonders for the Wizards and Bobcats. Ditto for Babe Ruth with the Boston Braves.

If Wayne Gretzky were in his prime and skating a regular shift, you might have had an argument.

But Jordan doesn't play for the Bobcats and doesn't appear on the courts. And while the Wizards didn't win games, they did sell every game Jordan played in.

And the Babe Ruth comparison isn't fair. The average American knows exactly one hockey player -- Wayne Gretzky. Babe Ruth wasn't as big a deal by the time he was with the Braves, and there were any number of other stars baseball fans could pay to see, including those on the Boston Red Sox.

Sure, Gretzky making Phoenix the Los Angeles of 2009 would be great, but that's not what I'm saying. Inasmuch as the NHL has a draw for the casual fan, the chance to see Gretzky is it. And Phoenix still blew it.

Except the "allure" of seeing Gretzky is diminished by the fact that he is merely sitting on the team's bench, doing little to provide guidance or direction to the team he coaches and showing no sign of his "greatness." In short, he's George Washington during the American Revolution, only Washington was able to at least keep his charges in some form of order and organization.

[dfwabel]

"Brian in Boston" thank you for your insight on this subject. The disdain of the commissioner on this board needed clarification on duties and role. Plus, Bettman is they only major sport chief executive which you cal and b#tch. Every Thursday, he is on Sirius/XM Radio (which I have), you can call and attempt to ask him a question. This Thursday he took a call from a fan from Carolina who claimed that the Pens never got called for teh first penalty of the game during the playoff and when the Pens were either even or losing in the 3rd, they had more power play opportunities. Callers like him get through, so don't think he does not have the sack to hear from fans. You may not like his immediate answer, but he is at least there (or his executive team every Thursday), no other sport executive is.

From NHL.com

Tune in every Thursday for the NHL Hour

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman is on the airwaves from 4-5 p.m. ET today (LISTEN!) for the NHL Hour on XM (Channel 204) and NHL.com. Call 1-877-NHL-ON-XM (1-877-645-6696) or e-mail nhlhour@nhl.com to ask questions or share your comments.

NHL Hour is a candid, interactive talk radio show that is hosted by a rotation of League executives, including Commissioner Bettman, Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly, and Senior Executive VP of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell. The show is co-hosted by XM sports host and former NHL player Bill Clement.