Opie 308 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 Florida Panthers and LA Kings are really the only teams I think are wasting space. You know I thought about putting the kings on there, however my theory was sort of sticking with expansion teams or recent bad moves by the nhl, i guess I got into corrective mode. What kind of draw does LA get? Anyone from out west know what home games are like, when the wings are not in town? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Crymson Report post Posted June 18, 2007 So all of this talk about Nashville losing its team has got me thinking. I personally would like to see the league shrunk by at least two teams if not up to four. So here it is if you were on the board and the question was posed by Bettman, which 4 teams would you contract from the league. Mine: 1. Florida 2. Carolina 3. Atlanta 4. Pheonix Honorable Mentions 4b. Nashville 4c. Tampa 4d. Minnesota 4e. Columbus Florida has a decent fanbase. I went to one of the games there, and they do OK. Carolina has a rabid fanbase. Atlanta? I don't know. Phoenix has always had lots of support. Any discussion of Nashville is academic. Tampa has a GREAT fanbase. Minnesota has a GREAT fanbase. Columbus I know nothing about, but they seem to get decent attendance. They've just had too little success for people to get excited. Recall that the Wings had the same problem in the immediate pre-Yzerman years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JayUp88 1 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 Columbus I know nothing about, but they seem to get decent attendance. They've just had too little success for people to get excited. Recall that the Wings had the same problem in the immediate pre-Yzerman years. True lets see what happens if they start winning some games? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toby91_ca 620 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 I believe the Colorado Rockies they were coached by Don Cherry The person was asking whether an NHL cup winning team has ever been contracted. Not sure how the Rockies fits the bill. As far as I can tell, it's just the Senators and the Maroons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 You know I thought about putting the kings on there, however my theory was sort of sticking with expansion teams or recent bad moves by the nhl, i guess I got into corrective mode. What kind of draw does LA get? Anyone from out west know what home games are like, when the wings are not in town? The Kings should stay. They've been in the league for 40 years and have a pretty good fan base, the problem is they've been a disappointment for so long. Every year they're supposed to turn it around, it never quite happens. It's like saying the Wing should have lost a team in the early 80s. If the Kings start winning, the fans will be there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WingsownNHL 0 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 Ok guys, You must realize that any city will appear to have a decent fan base when their team is winning. It is the support the team receives when they are less competitive that is important. As for expanding the league, not to be mean but that is the worse idea ever presented to fix the NHL. The league is already VERY diluted. There are 3 or 4 players on most of the rosters that shouldnt even be in the league, if we expanded that number would rise. Contract AT LEAST 4 teams and the level of play will rise which should make for a more exciting product. Also, we need to realize the game is what it is. It will never be as popular as football or baseball. If this means more teams should be in Canada, so be it. The only teams that should not be contracted or relocated are as follows. New Jersey Devils New York Islanders New York Rangers Philadelphia Flyers Boston Bruins Buffalo Sabres Montreal Canadians Ottawa Senators Toronto Maple Leafs Chicago Blackhawks Detroit Red Wings St. Louis Blues Calgary Flames Colorado Avalanche Edmonton Oilers Minnesota Wild Vancouver Canucks And no i did not leave anyone off that list. A case could be made for the 13 other teams in the nhl to be contracted or relocated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Echolalia 2,961 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 You know I thought about putting the kings on there, however my theory was sort of sticking with expansion teams or recent bad moves by the nhl, i guess I got into corrective mode. What kind of draw does LA get? Anyone from out west know what home games are like, when the wings are not in town? I honestly didn't apply their attendance or fanbase to my decisions. The Kings have been mediocre at best for far too long, and with two other teams in California (which I still think is one too many) for fans to root for, I really think wiping them off the nhl would be for the best. I'm not sure about scraping all the teams that are struggling to put up decent numbers in terms of attendance and what not, as many of these teams that people are talking about are only 5 years old. If they're still failing come 10 years, WITH PROPER MARKETING APPLIED, then I'll be convinced that the state/area they're located in is not meant for hockey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jagr68 0 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 It's easy to say get rid of a team because of poor attendence. But you have to figure, why the low attendence. The Hawks, for example, had one of the worst attendences in the NHL. Nobody talks about getting rid of them, probably because they are a original six. That is true, but the reason for their low attendence is the team was having a terrible year. Most fans don't want to pay high prices to watch their team lose. So the Hawks having low attendence, and the Pens a few years ago, is not really a surprise. People complained saying the Pens should be moved because of low attendence, but come on, they were one of the worst teams in the NHL. In reality, it's a surprise they had decent attendence during those bad years when Pittsburgh is really a football city. The real problem is Nashville. When your team has one of the best records in the NHL (anywhere from 1st to 5th best throughout the year or so) and you have bad attendence, that is a real problem. You'd have to wonder how bad they would be if they were one of the worst teams. And like somebody else mentioned, Tampa has a huge fanbase and had pretty good fanbase before their Cup too. Not as good as now, but certainly was a pretty good following. They have sell outs all the time now. My girlfriend and I wanted to take a trip to Tampa during the season but couldn't find tickets for the game or two we wanted to attend (Pittsburgh). I'd like to see the NHL get rid of a few teams too. But it's hard to get rid of a team because they have low attendence. Any team that has been horrible the last few years you have to expect that. If a team is winning and has bad attendence (Nashville) I'd say it's worth mentioning, atleast, to fold or relocate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted June 18, 2007 I honestly didn't apply their attendance or fanbase to my decisions. The Kings have been mediocre at best for far too long, and with two other teams in California (which I still think is one too many) for fans to root for, I really think wiping them off the nhl would be for the best. I'm not sure about scraping all the teams that are struggling to put up decent numbers in terms of attendance and what not, as many of these teams that people are talking about are only 5 years old. If they're still failing come 10 years, WITH PROPER MARKETING APPLIED, then I'll be convinced that the state/area they're located in is not meant for hockey. I agree three teams may be too much for California. But getting rid of the Kings would be getting rid of the team with the strongest fan base. If the Kings could get their act together and perform like the Ducks. A lot of hockey fans would re-emerge in Southern California. People who've been watching a looong time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pjgj13 30 Report post Posted June 19, 2007 I would say Washington Crapitals Florida Panthers Phoenix Coyotes LA Kings I believe the Colorado Rockies they were coached by Don Cherry The Rockies never won the cup while in Colorado. NJ, Yes, CO, No Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
betterREDthandead 58 Report post Posted June 19, 2007 I believe the Colorado Rockies they were coached by Don Cherry Uh, what? First off, the Rockies weren't contracted, they moved to New Jersey and became the Devils. The only modern-era team ever to be contracted was the Cleveland Barons. And the idea of the Rockies hoisting the Cup is laughable, as "Rocky Hockey" was synonymous with "crap." If I had to pick four teams to be contracted, I'd go with the Panthers, Capitals, Coyotes, and Predators. But then again, I think the idea of contraction is silly, so that's nothing but pure hypothetics. And actually, I think Nashville ought to stay put, at least for now, I only picked them because I can't justify picking any other team. (I also have this thing against getting rid of a team that's won a Cup.) I'd relocate rather than contract - I think Houston, Kansas City, Seattle, or Milwaukee would be better hockey markets than Miami, Washington, and Phoenix. Because, the fact of the matter is, the costs of contraction are fantastically enormous (far more than most people realize) and would heavily outweigh any benefits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Earthhuman 8 Report post Posted June 19, 2007 In defense of Columbus: Compared to HOCKEYTOWN, yes, the fanbase is pretty lukewarm. However, their fanbase is growing, it is a waste of a GREAT arena, and they are really getting it together. They seemed like the pretty-boy team from Slapshot 2 at first, even I admit it, but they have started to adopt a grittier style thanks to the addition of Foote and Shelley, plus their newer prospects play what looks like real hockey.... ... but for god sakes, will somebody change that logo?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevie for president 42 Report post Posted June 19, 2007 the NBA is the most diluted of all the major sports and it was on the rise until this year. the NHLs best years were when it was expanding and diluted. i say relocate nashville(looks like theyre going to hamilton), new jersey(come on, their attendance is putrid. put them in kansas city), and atlanta(they dont deserve a sport besides football. put them in i guess vegas since that city seems to be in expansion talks for some reason) and send a notice to washington and phoenix that their end is near if they dont get their acts straight. lynch the hawks owner since hes the worst in all of sports and kill gary bettman. expand 2 more teams to canada. i bet i get torn apart for this, but i dont care. i disagree with the hockey is too diluted argument. you cant tell me any of a decent teams top 15 players shouldnt be in the nhl, and who cares about the 4th line because they see what, 6 minutes of ice time? right now every team has a legit starting goalie and a back up that could start on most teams. i think the talent has never been this strong in the nhl. i think the only reason the public thinks otherwise is because of poor marketing. if you dont know a player, you automatically assume he isnt worthy of a roster spot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scotzman 29 Report post Posted June 19, 2007 No contract. Must expand. More Hockey Good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest GordieSid&Ted Report post Posted June 19, 2007 In defense of Columbus: Compared to HOCKEYTOWN, yes, the fanbase is pretty lukewarm. However, their fanbase is growing, it is a waste of a GREAT arena, and they are really getting it together. They seemed like the pretty-boy team from Slapshot 2 at first, even I admit it, but they have started to adopt a grittier style thanks to the addition of Foote and Shelley, plus their newer prospects play what looks like real hockey.... ... but for god sakes, will somebody change that logo?? I don't really mind the logo terribly. Hell, I was expecting much, much worse. After they unveilded crap like the Lightning and the Wild with that goofy forest, moon of endor image that's supposed to double as some kind of "wild" beast and the Canucks rabid orca I really thought Columbus was in trouble. But I found the team name and the uni's to be ok. They were patriotic in nature in color scheme and with the stars and the bluejacket didn't look like a cartoon mighty ducks version so i didn't mind it at all. And yes, Columbus is on the cusp of being a decent team. It isn't so much foote and shelley as it is Ken Hitchcock and now they have a new GM. Columbus has always been a lunchpail group, they just didn't have a ton of talent. Now they have some talent and some of their draft picks will start to pay off for them. I am proud to say that as a youth and into my college years I bought all my hockey equipment from Fritsche's hockey supply in Parma, OH and now Dan Fritsche is a Blue Jacket. He's all growns up. That team is 2 seasons away from being pretty decent. Anybody have the stats on the Jackets record after Hitch arrived last year? I wouldn't be surprised if they played near .500 hockey under him. It'll only get better, Hitch, boring as his style is knows how to coach. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted June 19, 2007 The only modern-era team ever to be contracted was the Cleveland Barons. As I have detailed in another thread somewhere, the Barons were not contracted in the sense that is being talked about here. They merged with the North Stars, and the Barons ownership group bought out the existing owners of the Minnesota franchise under the guiding hand of the NHL. The Gunds, who had owned the Barons, wanted to move the North Stars to the bay area in 1990, and instead the league orchestrated a 'split' of the previously merged teams. The Gunds got their franchise in the bay area, an Minnesota stayed put for a couple more years until the new owner decided to move them to Dallas because attendance had not improved. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BringHomeTheCup! 0 Report post Posted June 19, 2007 You guys should do some more research on Tampa Bay. They don't have a strong following. I recall a thread earlier in the year talking about how Tampa Bay didn't sell out a single game last year. Tampa is a good team, with a lot of potential. Contraction is a bad idea. There is no addition by subtraction here. If necessary, move a few teams to Canada. You know they will be supported there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elriqo28 2 Report post Posted June 19, 2007 don't get rid of any teams, or make the league smaller. If a team is doing bad where it is, they can move to a more supportive area. I think quite the opposite of you, i think we should expand the league, the more hockey fans around the better. your dumb! stop responding to topics. No contract. Must expand. More Hockey Good. more teams equals watered down talent which means crappy hockey....so more hockey bad! there should never be any more expansion! 30 is already too many! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted June 20, 2007 It may be interesting for discussion, but contraction isn't going to happen. It's too expensive for the league to buy back a few franchises. I'm okay with holding steady at 30. Just improve the quality of the game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theman19 47 Report post Posted June 20, 2007 anyone who says carolina should be contracted has never been to Raleigh to see them play. The state of North Carolina does in fact not care a bit about the hurricanes, but why does that matter? Is someone from a city 4 hours away going to come see the canes? Do people from the upper island of michigan routinly come to see the red wings? The people of Raleigh are in love with the canes. Granted it's all roses now, they've had a bad season and we'll have to see what they do from here but as someone who lives in Raleigh i can tell you the fanbase is absolutely rabid about their team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kp-Wings 3 Report post Posted June 20, 2007 Columbus and Carolina both have a great fan base. They should not be contracted. I've said it before, I've said it again: The Washington Capitals need to either move, or be contracted, because that market is just a joke. They have never had a consistant sellout streak, even during the years when they were good, and their fan base is laughable at best. All be it 95% of the city of D.C. probably doesn't even know who Ovechkin is. That city is all Redskins. After that is the Wizards. When their not playing it's the Nationals. If all three of those teams are bad, then the Ravens and Orioles all get more support then the Captials, and they play in a different city! Nashville is the other obvious choice. Pathetic fan base, and pathetic corperate support. New Jersey or Phoenix are next after that, since their fan bases are pretty lame as well. New Jersey shouldn't have an excuse either, since they've been a highly successful team the past few years. Anaheim is another one, since most people in LA/SoCal are Kings fans, and California doesn't need three teams. I actually think if, given a good team, the Florida Panthers could mantain themselves as a decent market. Their fan base really isn't all that bad, and I know people in Miami who are Panthers fans that really didn't follow hockey that much until Miami was given a team. Plus the city is teaming with northern transplants, which also gives it some potential. Hockey is slowly becoming a decently popular sport in Florida. Notice their attendance went up pretty good at the tail end of this season when the Panthers were in the playoff race a bit. Give it time. If the Panthers are able to ice a successful team, they'd get good support. Washington and Nashville are the main two, with New Jersey also in there close behind. These are three markets that, even during periods of having successful teams, still can't sellout or get a decent fan base. They are problem markets, and if the NHL ever had to come to contraction, these three would be the main three to go, with probably Anaheim or Phoenix thrown in there as the 4th to even things up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maltbyrocks18 0 Report post Posted June 20, 2007 I'll tell you who did it. it was that damn sasquatch! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joshy207 156 Report post Posted June 20, 2007 If I was the League Commissioner and I had to buy back 4 franchises, I'd contract Phoenix, Florida, the New York Islanders, and either Washington or Chicago. Phoenix and Florida have lukewarm fan support and are perennial cellar-dwellers. The New York Islanders' front office is a circus, and their arena and attendance are horrid. Washington or Chicago would be a very, very tough call--I'd force Wirtz to either invest in the Hawks, sell, or lose the franchise. They are the worst-run franchise in pro sports, even worse than the Detroit Lions. Beyond that, I would not stand in the way of sensible franchise relocations to viable hockey markets in the northern US or Canada. Saskatoon and Halifax would not get teams, but Winnipeg, southern Ontario (wherever Balsillie decides to move the Predators)... no problem. Quebec would have to show the desire and the investment before getting another team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gordie Howe hat trick 110 Report post Posted June 20, 2007 I'd like to see the NHL get rid of a few teams too. But it's hard to get rid of a team because they have low attendence. Any team that has been horrible the last few years you have to expect that. If a team is winning and has bad attendence (Nashville) I'd say it's worth mentioning, atleast, to fold or relocate. Exactly, no O6 team should ever be contracted for any reason. It is part of the history of the game. And I know of many rabid Hawks fans that just don't want to go to the United Center to watch their team lose, what is the fun in that? If I was the League Commissioner and I had to buy back 4 franchises, I'd contract Phoenix, Florida, the New York Islanders, and either Washington or Chicago. Phoenix and Florida have lukewarm fan support and are perennial cellar-dwellers. The New York Islanders' front office is a circus, and their arena and attendance are horrid. Washington or Chicago would be a very, very tough call--I'd force Wirtz to either invest in the Hawks, sell, or lose the franchise. They are the worst-run franchise in pro sports, even worse than the Detroit Lions. Beyond that, I would not stand in the way of sensible franchise relocations to viable hockey markets in the northern US or Canada. Saskatoon and Halifax would not get teams, but Winnipeg, southern Ontario (wherever Balsillie decides to move the Predators)... no problem. Quebec would have to show the desire and the investment before getting another team. The thing is, as much as I agree with Nashville TN not needing a hockey team...Bettman is in bed with the owners so hey aren'g going to be contracted no matter what. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
betterREDthandead 58 Report post Posted June 20, 2007 As I have detailed in another thread somewhere, the Barons were not contracted in the sense that is being talked about here. They merged with the North Stars, and the Barons ownership group bought out the existing owners of the Minnesota franchise under the guiding hand of the NHL. The Gunds, who had owned the Barons, wanted to move the North Stars to the bay area in 1990, and instead the league orchestrated a 'split' of the previously merged teams. The Gunds got their franchise in the bay area, an Minnesota stayed put for a couple more years until the new owner decided to move them to Dallas because attendance had not improved. I'm well aware of the circumstances of the merger between the Barons and North Stars. The details are totally unimportant. The fact is that the Barons disappeared and the North Stars stayed put, thus making it a contraction of the league. By any other name it's still a contraction. If you want to get technical, the league never did "contract" in the sense we're talking about here because the old Senators and the Maroons simply folded (as well as the Americans and any other team from the O6 era that doesn't exist any more.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites