NHL to discuss expansion

[Guest Lebda4Pres]

id love so see a team in vegas but every one in the league would become gambling addicts

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I can 2nd this. My wife and I have been to two Cbus games and both were sold out by loud, passionate fans.

It's a good hockey market.

If there were to be contraction it should be for teams that have proven to lose money and struggle due to poor attendance and an apathetic fanbase.

The minute situations arrive like the Preds fiasco, the thought of contraction should cross the owners mind. But that will never happen. The league will continue to grow as more and more teams are placed into non-traditional markets hoping to slam the sport down the US's throat.

You could put an NHL team in every city in the States and it's not going to make Juan Valdez in New Mexico watch the game anymore than he is now.

True 'dat!

I've been an Ohioan for 28 of my 30 years of existence on this rock. I used to go to every Wings/Jackets game and of course those bad boys were always sold out. I specifically remember one game years ago, I took my wife to it and she was in the bathroom at the end when I believe Stevie scored the overtime winner of a very exciting game that was like 3-3 or 4-4 going into OT. My wife came back just as Stevie scored and i'm like "you missed the best freaking part!"

anyway, I attended games when Philly and Colorado came, etcc.....almost always packed to capacity and fans having a hell of a good time cheering a team that stunk more often than not.

A team that gets great attendance since its inception despite never making the playoffs is the sign of a great market with a not so good team. Having a bad record doesn't mean you're a bad market.

Now Nashville, a great team that couldn't make money and couldn't sell out their games is a sign of a bad market and I wish people would put some thought into this before lumping Columbus in with teams like Atlanta and Nashville when it comes to contraction.

For the record Columbus' average attendance outdrew 13 other NHL teams. So if people want to talk contraction there are at least a dozen teams they ought to look at first.

[zata40 3]

I think expansion is a good idea, but it has to be done right.

placed like Las Vegas, Kansas City, Seattle and Winnipeg would be great expansion towns, but the nhl should let the newest NHL teams grow a good fan base first. let another 5-10 yrs pass before any expansion happens.

and the issue of diluting talent, i dont it as bad as some of you are letting on. just think we have a hole world of talent, we can add a few more teams.

and i made a map of what the league would look like if those 4 teams were added.

plus i added some cities that could also be potential expansion teams.

(salt lake, Portland, and somewhere in Wisconsin, hey they got good college hockey)

they way i see it, the more exposure to hockey around the country the better, it can only help the sport in general.

[Guest jaytan]

The league already made this mistake once. The proper solution would be to basically reverse previous expansion - contract two teams, and move one or two others to proper hockey markets.

Buttman should have allowed Nashville to move to Ontario, and after that is taken care of, we can figure out which doomed franchises to euthanize.

In response to the map above my post: Seattle's worse for expansion than Portland because they don't have an arena, and they're too close to Vancouver. Plus, there's more competition there, with three major sports teams (two of which have brand-new stadiums) and a major Division I university in town (Washington).

Edited September 18, 2007 by jaytan

[SweWings 45]

I'll be honest, I don't have much of an opinion about the expansion/contraction thing. As the amount of teams has grown, the development of players has become better and the influx of Euro players has balanced out the quality. The thing that I really don't get is why the amount of regular season games has stayed the same even as the playoffs take longer time to finish. And what's up with the scheduling, the person who came up with that should be shot...

[Rob the Badger 0]

I'm in favor of losing teams and strengthening the talent pool. Not depleteing it with more teams that are doomed to fail. I'd be in favor of a 24 team league with 4 divisions. Only the top two teams per division would qualify for the play offs. Yes, you'd lose a lot of play off games and some revenue because of it, but the product would be better. This would also affect the AHL and other minor league systems by making their product better as well.

Basically it would put the fourth line of every team back in the minors or back in Europe. Their talent pools get better and we'd be watching a better product in the NHL. We'd see a lot less empty seats in arenas like in Florida, Pheonix, Nashville, Atlanta, etc etc. If you can't draw in at least 5,000 season ticket holders to a top level professional sport, you probably shouldn't have a team. *looking at you Atlanta*

The league's brain trust should be looking for ways to improve the NHL, not trying to find more inventive ways of putting the final coffin nails in it.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I'm in favor of losing teams and strengthening the talent pool. Not depleteing it with more teams that are doomed to fail. I'd be in favor of a 24 team league with 4 divisions. Only the top two teams per division would qualify for the play offs. Yes, you'd lose a lot of play off games and some revenue because of it, but the product would be better. This would also affect the AHL and other minor league systems by making their product better as well.

Basically it would put the fourth line of every team back in the minors or back in Europe. Their talent pools get better and we'd be watching a better product in the NHL. We'd see a lot less empty seats in arenas like in Florida, Pheonix, Nashville, Atlanta, etc etc. If you can't draw in at least 5,000 season ticket holders to a top level professional sport, you probably shouldn't have a team. *looking at you Atlanta*

The league's brain trust should be looking for ways to improve the NHL, not trying to find more inventive ways of putting the final coffin nails in it.

As MLB, the NBA and the NFL grew in popularity did those league's contract?

How are you going to get the southern states and non-traditional hockey markets to get interested in hockey if there's nothing to root for?

The fans have already shown they would come back in droves after the lockout. By your way of thinking, all you want to do is make the game smaller. Making the game smaller with less exposure won't do anything to make the game get more recognition and in turn, turn those non-traditional, perhaps loser franchises into marketable, profitable franchises.

What you want sounds more like just wanting to see the best possible hockey. Which is a good thing IMO. But not at the cost of stagnating the sport. We're trying to grow our sport. And we're making strides. For the 1st time ever and now 2 consecutive years the NHL Draft #1 pick has been a US born player. That says something for our developmental programs and for how strong the youth movement is for our sport here in the states.

We need more exposure. We need a better TV deal and more prime time games on the big channels. We need the big 3 and ESPN to carry games and then we need them to be smart enough to put good games on. Put the 2nd game of a home and home with two bitter rivals on. Put Crosby on versus the Rangers. Pick potentially great games and give them exposure so maybe the non fan catches it and says, "damn, this is pretty cool".

Eliminating 6 teams and shrinking the league's exposure nationally even moreso just so we can see a few better players filling up rosters is small minded and short sighted in my opinion.

PS: Get rid of the ******* instigator rule. It ranks up there with the glow puck as worst mistakes in pro sports history.

[Rob the Badger 0]

Growing a sport that isn't healthy is just a quicker route to killing it. Look at the season ticket holder stats for teams like the Panthers, Predators, Thrashers, Coyotes, etc. The league shouldn't be considering expanding, it should be looking to eliminate teams that don't belong in markets that won't support them. If they eliminate the sore spots, they should at least move them to where they would be more appreciated. Canada is hockey crazy. They could take a team in Hamilton and another back in Manitoba. There are other northern cities that would welcome an NHL team. Why not Milwaukee? Why not Portland? Why not Seattle? There are communitites that aren't supporting their NHL team, whether it's due to bad management or just community indifference. Keeping the teams just for the sake of keeping them, and dumping more money into them, just doesn't make sense. You find out who your real fans are when things are going badly. Teams like Pheonix and Atlanta are learning that now.

[Hiei 192]

Winnipeg I believe in. They've already stated that it can only take 1 offseason to expand the MTS Centre in Winnipeg to 18,000 seats.

Kansas City I believe in. Look at how the Arena and the City stood up for the Penguins! Why not for an expansion team?

Portland I believe in. Strong AHL attendance plus the Rose Garden is nice for hockey.

Hamilton I believe in. Look at the support for the Preds, even though it wasn't guaranteed!

Houston I believe in. Strong AHL Attendance plus the NBA Owners are in pursuit of an NHL Franchise. May eventually lead to San Antonio??? That can only be good. Can't believe Dallas is the only NHL City in all of Texas.

Seattle I am against. City hasn't much hockey history, and Key Arena isn't set up for hockey. Not to mention the proximity to Vancouver.

Las Vegas I am against. What Industry besides Gambling is there to support the NHL or even NBA for that matter?

Lose the Instigator rule, Crack down on clutch-and-grab BIG TIME, and Widen the net 1 foot to each side (because Bip looked f***in ridiculous in pads last year) avg attendance rises, people get interested, and the NHL is back to glory or even higher.

[MacK_Attack 108]

Lose the Instigator rule,

Tough to do without the hippies crying foul because the NHL is condoning fighting. I think the thing to do is to have a *hush hush* meeting where they tell the BoG that they just aren't going to call it anymore. Yeah, it'll never happen, I know.

[BlakChamber 8]

As MLB, the NBA and the NFL grew in popularity did those league's contract?

How are you going to get the southern states and non-traditional hockey markets to get interested in hockey if there's nothing to root for?

The fans have already shown they would come back in droves after the lockout. By your way of thinking, all you want to do is make the game smaller. Making the game smaller with less exposure won't do anything to make the game get more recognition and in turn, turn those non-traditional, perhaps loser franchises into marketable, profitable franchises.

What you want sounds more like just wanting to see the best possible hockey. Which is a good thing IMO. But not at the cost of stagnating the sport. We're trying to grow our sport. And we're making strides. For the 1st time ever and now 2 consecutive years the NHL Draft #1 pick has been a US born player. That says something for our developmental programs and for how strong the youth movement is for our sport here in the states.

We need more exposure. We need a better TV deal and more prime time games on the big channels. We need the big 3 and ESPN to carry games and then we need them to be smart enough to put good games on. Put the 2nd game of a home and home with two bitter rivals on. Put Crosby on versus the Rangers. Pick potentially great games and give them exposure so maybe the non fan catches it and says, "damn, this is pretty cool".

I asked the same question you did earlier in this thread and never got an answer. How do you make more people interested if there's less teams.

And why is it just assumed that because a city has cold weather they'll support a team? When's the last time a warm weather team went to a cold city? Atlanta to Calgary?

[Doctor G 0]

I think expansion is a good idea, but it has to be done right.

placed like Las Vegas, Kansas City, Seattle and Winnipeg would be great expansion towns, but the nhl should let the newest NHL teams grow a good fan base first. let another 5-10 yrs pass before any expansion happens.

and the issue of diluting talent, i dont it as bad as some of you are letting on. just think we have a hole world of talent, we can add a few more teams.

and i made a map of what the league would look like if those 4 teams were added.

plus i added some cities that could also be potential expansion teams.

(salt lake, Portland, and somewhere in Wisconsin, hey they got good college hockey)

they way i see it, the more exposure to hockey around the country the better, it can only help the sport in general.

Love the map Zata. Looking it over made me wonder which teams are going to last and which are going to move. The reason I say this is because more teams than Nashville are losing money. Also this league more than any other plays musical chairs with cities. But I like all the cities you named for expansion.

Now if there is a expansion team in the northwest does anybody know if Paul Allen would be involved? He would be a good owner, I liked to see Cuban & Balisille be involved with other teams. Supposedly the Maloofs would like to be involved with the Vegas team, things could get interesting.

Edit: not sure on spelling of Balisille & Maloof, so my apologies to them all if wrong.

[T-Ruff 47]

How so, care to elaborate?

More and more kids have been and are playing hockey in the U.S. which is increasing the talent pool immensely. Other countries have since been improving their hockey programs as well....There will be plenty of talented players to fill 32 teams by the time expansion ends up happening... which I think will be within 5-8 years....

Edited September 19, 2007 by T-Ruff

[eva unit zero 271]

Takes decades to "grow" talent that would equal anything resembling NHL caliber talent...Several years ago a hockey playing buddy of mine, & I went to a local pro shop which is owned by an ex-Milwaukee Admiral...While there a woman came in to get her sons' skates sharpened; she constantly gushed on how great her kid was, & how he was gonna be a star in the NHL blah-blah-blah...We noticed Fred (owner) was getting tired of her yapping - he then tells her politely "So far I haven't seen a kid around here with enough talent to play in the NHL - let alone the AHL" .

The expression on the womans' face was priceless -

She paid for the skate sharpening, & left in a hurry as my buddy, & I :rotflmao:

To reiterate the point, AGAIN, in 1989, there were 20 teams worth of Canadian talent in the NHL. There are 16 teams worth of Canadian talent in the NHL now. So unless the Canadian product has gotten worse (blasphemy in Canada) that means there's at the very least four teams worth of NHLers not in the league. If we assume the shut-out talent is proportional in Europeans and Americans, then that means we have over seven teams worth of NHL-caliber players who are not in the league right now. Yes, it takes generations to grow talent...but we don't need to grow talent--we already have it. The NHL right now could probably support 36 or 38 teams with comparable average talent to the 1980s. Now, that number of teams is kinda silly..but 32 is a good number that lends itself well to divisions and scheduling.

[Guest Yzer19]

You're joking right? I remember this hullabaloo and it was so blown out of proportion. Anyway, what are you like 5 years old? Did you get your feelings hurt over this or something?

How does booing the division rival captain make you a small market team? How does booing Yzerman mean you aren't a viable hockey city or that the team should be contracted?

Should the Wings have been contracted for booing arguably the greatest American born defenseman in Chris Chelios everytime he stepped on Joe Louis ice?

I don't sugarcoat things for people and I ain't gonna do it for you. Your response to my questioning you about contracting Columbus is that Columbus fans have no class??? That is the most absurd response imaginable. If you want to discuss that situation then we can. But this is about contraction and why you name columbus as a city to contract. You don't have a good reason for it other than a personal bias because they booed Stevie. You failed to address anything I said. Like I pointed out, people who want to contract Columbus don't know a puck from their butthole. When the best argument for contraction you can come up with is that they booed Yzerman at the draft, I think you need to spend less time on here and more time studying for your Geography test on Friday.

Apparently you're one of those former Wings fan that became a Columbus fan when they got a NHL team. I apologize if I offended you. I never said Columbus should be contracted because they booed some crappy player, I said that's one of the big reasons Columbus fans have such a bad name. I was responding to post complaining about Columbus Fan's bad name. You just don't boo the classiest players in the NHL. I don't think Avs fans would even stoop that low. I can't believe you honestly think Wings fan booing a dirty, classless Chelios that trashes hotel rooms and picked a fight with Yzerman is the same thing as Columbus fans booing Yzerman.

As for contraction, I just think the NHL should get rid of some of the small markets that are struggling. The reason I think Columbus is a small market team is because the NHL was constantly referring to them as a small market during the NHL lockout.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Yzer19

[eva unit zero 271]

Apparently you're one of those former Wings fan that became a Columbus fan when they got a NHL team. I apologize if I offended you. I never said Columbus should be contracted because they booed some crappy player, I said that's one of the big reasons Columbus fans have such a bad name. You just don't boo the classiest players in the NHL. I don't think Avs fans would even stoop that low. I can't believe you honestly think Wings fan booing a dirty, classless Chelios that trashes hotel rooms and picked a fight with Yzerman is the same thing as Columbus fans booing Yzerman.

As for contraction, I just think the NHL should get rid of some of the small markets that are struggling. The reason I think Columbus is a small market team is because the NHL was constantly referring to them as a small market during the NHL lockout.

Well, since the NHL is a gate-revenue driven league, attendance should be the primary indicator of a team's fiscal situation. And if we're using attendance to determine whether a franchise is in a viable market, we can use Winnipeg as the litmus test since everyone thinks Winnipeg did such a great job supporting the Jets. So here's the deal; only two NHL teams-the Hawks and Islanders-averaged worse attendance per gme over the past three seasons than Winnipeg's single season best. Chicago and New York are not small markets, and if they are the only teams that don't meet the Winnipeg test, then there is no struggling small market in the NHL at this point. If there is a small market team currently in the NHL that can be considered struggling, it can be taken as proof Winnipeg is a failed hockey market because that would mean even on their best day they were struggling to survive. I'm not isputing the label of Columbus as a small market...it's the third-largest market in Ohio and somewhere around 35th or 40th among all markets in the US. I am mainly disputing the statement of 'struggling' being applied to it.

[Opie 308]

Eva,

I like discussing things with you because you always back you statements up with why you feel that way.

However, you are assuming a lot about the talent pool.

Teams like

Pho

Fla

Bos

Chi

Tbl

and others at times in the recent past have had a hard time icing a competitive team. And when TB did win the cup, how bad were Was, ATL, and Car.

If the league is so laced with talent how come, there are so many teams that struggle to be competitive even without major injuries.

And for those of you who ask how are you going to grow a sport's fan base without growing the league, ummmm TV!!!

Get a TV contract that will not stop coverage of a playoff game for a NASCAR race or a Basketball game. Put a game together that all teams are competitive. No one wants to sit around and watch a game they are not really interested in when the score is 6-1. That will not grow the fan base.

Contraction (not the answer right now either) would allow for that. And if you contacted two teams you still wouldn't make a drastic change. There would be 15-20 players from 2 teams that people would be all over.

Right now the league has to focus on getting the game more popular and strengthen the teams that are out there.

Two teams have been sold this off season, and in the case of the Preds the owner has been the bastard stepchild of the league for the past couple of years. Let me explain that statement, he has been living off of the money teams like Det have been forced to give up. He constantly complained that there was no way for him to field a team in such a small market. He had by far the sweetest arena deal known to mankind. Yet this team some how could not make money and thus is forced to cut talent this year to be "fiscally safe".

So there are teams out there right now in markets that can not support hockey teams (if what Leopold was saying is correct), the leagues popularity is suffering, there are teams already that can not ice a competitive team (ownership/gm fault or not), yet you are trying to tell me that expansion will solve this.

All that is going to do is open the door for more poorly run organizations and weaker competition. Besides the wings who else pulls late round draft miracles with regularity? Not many teams, because the late rounds are hard to find great talent in.

I thought the last expansion was a great idea, I was wrong then, and I believe it is wrong now.

[eva unit zero 271]

Eva,

I like discussing things with you because you always back you statements up with why you feel that way.

However, you are assuming a lot about the talent pool.

Teams like

Pho

Fla

Bos

Chi

Tbl

and others at times in the recent past have had a hard time icing a competitive team. And when TB did win the cup, how bad were Was, ATL, and Car.

If the league is so laced with talent how come, there are so many teams that struggle to be competitive even without major injuries.

Only half the teams can have winning records, even if everyone's regular roster had twelve Zetterbergs, six Lidstroms, and two Brodeurs. There will always be better and worse teams; the thing is the 'worse' teams now would be competetive in the 80s. I'll explain why: there are approximately 350 Canadian players in the league now, while in the 80s there were approximately 450. If we assume that extra 100 players to be evenly distributed among the positions, that means about 60 forwards, 30 defensemen, and 10 goalies who would have been in the league based on the 1987 demographics are not there now. That's about 3 forwards, 1.5 defensemen, and .5 goalies per team based on a 21-team league. If we assume that Canadian hockey has improved over the years, we can round up to achieve whole numbers. So the skill group that made up fourth-line forwards, No.6-7 defensemen, and the bottom half of backup goalies is now out of the league altogether, meaning that teams now have guys who would have been third liners in 1987 playing on the fourth line. So even a team that now is a little on the less skilled side would still have been a competitive team in the 80s.

For example...Marc Denis finished 44th in save percentage in the NHL, making him an average NHL backup based on that statistic. He was 20th among Canadian goaltenders, which would have made him a bona fide starter in the 80s. There are 8 Canadian goaltenders who finished in the top 20 Canadians yet failed to make the top 30 goaltenders. Meaning there are only thirteen goaltenders (including Rick Dipietro as the one American) who would start under both sets of criteria, and seventeen who would be excluded from the '87' group because they are either European or American.

The top 60 scoring Canadian forwards includes names like Penner, Schaefer, Avery, Ouellet, Lombardi, and Boyes. Only 41 Canadian forwards are in the top 90 scoring forwards from last season, meaning 19 guys who are second line offensive forwards would have been first liners in 87.

If we make the assumption that the distribution from top to bottom is the same proportion for both Canadians and Euros/Americans (for simplified math), that means that the talent would break down like this:

Canadian players, 1987 vs 2007

First liners: 60 v 50

Second liners: 60 v 50

Third liners: 60 v 50

Fourth liners: 60 v 50

13th forwards: 20 v 16

No.1-2 D: 40 v 33

No. 3-4 D: 40 v 33

No. 5-6 D: 40 v 33

7th D: 20 v 16

Starting G: 20 v 16

Backup G: 20 v 16

So ultimately, 10 first liners are pushed to the second line, 20 second liners are pushed to the third line, and 30 third-liners are pushed to the fourth line. 16 fourth liners are pushed to the press box, and 26 are pushed to the minors. Seven top-two defensemen are demoted to the 3-4 slot, Fourteen 3-4 defensemen are pushed to the 5-6 slot, and 16 5-6 defensemen are pushed to the 7th position. Five 5-6 defensemen are pushed to the minors. Four starting goalies are now backups, and eight backups are pushed to the minors. All 13th forwards or 7th defensemen are in the minors.

And for those of you who ask how are you going to grow a sport's fan base without growing the league, ummmm TV!!!

Get a TV contract that will not stop coverage of a playoff game for a NASCAR race or a Basketball game. Put a game together that all teams are competitive. No one wants to sit around and watch a game they are not really interested in when the score is 6-1. That will not grow the fan base.

Contraction (not the answer right now either) would allow for that. And if you contacted two teams you still wouldn't make a drastic change. There would be 15-20 players from 2 teams that people would be all over.

Right now the league has to focus on getting the game more popular and strengthen the teams that are out there.

Two teams have been sold this off season, and in the case of the Preds the owner has been the bastard stepchild of the league for the past couple of years. Let me explain that statement, he has been living off of the money teams like Det have been forced to give up. He constantly complained that there was no way for him to field a team in such a small market. He had by far the sweetest arena deal known to mankind. Yet this team some how could not make money and thus is forced to cut talent this year to be "fiscally safe".

The contracts Hartnell and Timonen wanted (and got) were a worse example fiscal management...paying first line money for a second line forward, and paying elite defenseman money for a second tier defenseman? Nashville had no plans to resign Hartnell or Timonen at anything close to those amounts. Vokoun was outplayed by Mason last season, and Vokoun has health questions. Nashville made the decision to go with the significantly cheaper goaltender and develop their top prospect. Kariya left because he thought the team was moving to Hamilton and didn't want to be under the microscope in Ontario. Balsillie is never in the picture and Kariya probably stays in Nashville.

So there are teams out there right now in markets that can not support hockey teams (if what Leopold was saying is correct), the leagues popularity is suffering, there are teams already that can not ice a competitive team (ownership/gm fault or not), yet you are trying to tell me that expansion will solve this.

All that is going to do is open the door for more poorly run organizations and weaker competition. Besides the wings who else pulls late round draft miracles with regularity? Not many teams, because the late rounds are hard to find great talent in.

Who said anything about late round draft miracles? I said that there is a significantly higher level of talent in the league now, not that teams lacking talent could draft a superstar in the 7th round. I would argue that every team in the NHL right now has enough talent to be a playoff team in any year the league had 21 teams. See my breakdown above about why teams now are generally better because better players are playing on lower lines.

I thought the last expansion was a great idea, I was wrong then, and I believe it is wrong now.

All four teams from the last expansion are more supported and fiscally stable than Winnipeg was ever capable of. Winnipeg is touted as a good hockey market by Canadians. So that means all four of the most recent expansion are good hockey markets cpable of supporting a team, based on the Winnipeg standard.

[Opie 308]

I am not using Winnipeg as an example, I agree with you that is a poor example. I am not sure the Hamilton area could support another Hockey team better than Nashville can either.

You have a lot of assumptions in your thesis, lets look at the active rosters, how many teams out there right now have backup quality goaltenders as starters?

Bos (last year definitely and I am not sold on Manny F), Col, La, Phi (nitty has done nothing to me), CLB, etc.

How many teams have a D that consists of a 1 or 2 and then a bunch of 5-6's? Bos, Pho, Clb, Atl, etc.

How many teams have a top 6 that has 3rd or 4th line talent making it up, not because of choice? Det (this year), Bos, Chi, etc.

Now I know you can say it is because there is more talent out there, but that is where we have differing opinions and I would break my fingers trying to type all day if I were to try and change you opinion.

I brought up late round miracles because the draft is how more and more talent comes into the league. How many players from round 3 and beyond actually become NHL players? Not for a game or two or a season or two, I mean legit full time NHLers.

Yes the contracts given to Hartnell and Timmonen were way over paid and Nashville was not going to match. However the org has so much as said they were trying to hit league min. How is that helping anything, and the fact that they can ice a non-competitive team with out having to ravage their AHL team shows that their is plenty of talent in the NHL that is not deserved of being there.

It looks like Nashville is trying to be the Tampa Bay D-Rays of the NHL.

I am not so sure that Vokoun was out played by Mason. Mason played well but he could turn out to be their version of Legace. Everyone was screaming for Legace to be the starter, and when he was he was not a NHL caliber Starting netminder.

Vokoun is a proven goaltender and is only 30. This man singlehandedly won games for the franchise, played at an all star level for the last 5 years, and still has a few very quality years ahead of him. They traded him more for the $$ reasons than they did because they thought Mason was better than Vokoun. They were trying to sell the team, that won't happen with one of the highest payrolls.

I can't comment on whether or not any of the current teams could compete in the 80's I simply didn't watch enough hockey then. What I can say is that there are at least 5 teams in the league right now that you can eliminate from the playoffs. The season hasn't even started, but you can look at their rosters and say they do not have the talent to make the playoffs.

Chi, Nas, Mtl, Bos, Phx, Tbl.

I think we all can honestly look at their rosters and say that they are not making it, now there is the "punchers chance" that every team has. But how big of a surprise would it be if Chi plays more than 82 games this year.

Staying with the opinions of this board, how many players on this years Det roster get s*** on for their talent level. A lot of people gripe about Lilja, Lebda, etc, etc.

Not arguing with you just saying I don't think there is enough top tier talent to sustain more teams.

[eva unit zero 271]

I am not using Winnipeg as an example, I agree with you that is a poor example. I am not sure the Hamilton area could support another Hockey team better than Nashville can either.

You have a lot of assumptions in your thesis, lets look at the active rosters, how many teams out there right now have backup quality goaltenders as starters?

Bos (last year definitely and I am not sold on Manny F), Col, La, Phi (nitty has done nothing to me), CLB, etc.

How many teams have a D that consists of a 1 or 2 and then a bunch of 5-6's? Bos, Pho, Clb, Atl, etc.

How many teams have a top 6 that has 3rd or 4th line talent making it up, not because of choice? Det (this year), Bos, Chi, etc.

What third or fourth liners are in Detroit's top six? Or Boston's for that matter? We're talking third or fourth liners as in from the 181st to 360th best forwards in the league, not third liners as in guys who would have been third line on the 2002 Wings team.

Now I know you can say it is because there is more talent out there, but that is where we have differing opinions and I would break my fingers trying to type all day if I were to try and change you opinion.

I brought up late round miracles because the draft is how more and more talent comes into the league. How many players from round 3 and beyond actually become NHL players? Not for a game or two or a season or two, I mean legit full time NHLers.

Well, if we figure the average NHL career lasts twelve years (sounds abour right) that means we need to fill 30 teams with 23 players from twelve years of drafts. So we need about 55-60 players per draft year to make the NHL to have the necessary number of players to sustain the league.

Yes the contracts given to Hartnell and Timmonen were way over paid and Nashville was not going to match. However the org has so much as said they were trying to hit league min. How is that helping anything, and the fact that they can ice a non-competitive team with out having to ravage their AHL team shows that their is plenty of talent in the NHL that is not deserved of being there.

It looks like Nashville is trying to be the Tampa Bay D-Rays of the NHL.

I am not so sure that Vokoun was out played by Mason. Mason played well but he could turn out to be their version of Legace. Everyone was screaming for Legace to be the starter, and when he was he was not a NHL caliber Starting netminder.

Mason and Vokoun played the same amount last season, and Mason played better. That's outplayed, plain and simple.

Vokoun is a proven goaltender and is only 30. This man singlehandedly won games for the franchise, played at an all star level for the last 5 years, and still has a few very quality years ahead of him. They traded him more for the $$ reasons than they did because they thought Mason was better than Vokoun. They were trying to sell the team, that won't happen with one of the highest payrolls.

I can't comment on whether or not any of the current teams could compete in the 80's I simply didn't watch enough hockey then. What I can say is that there are at least 5 teams in the league right now that you can eliminate from the playoffs. The season hasn't even started, but you can look at their rosters and say they do not have the talent to make the playoffs.

Chi, Nas, Mtl, Bos, Phx, Tbl.

How is this different from any period in NHL history since the Original Six? The divide between good and bad teams has ALWAYS been there; You are acting like the worst teams in the league would be closer to the top teams in talent in a 21 team league than in a 30 team league...which is just not the case. The top teams would still be able to collect talent. If two teams are offering the same money, the player will often go to the team that has a better chance of winning. So if one team has been a top team for years, and has skilled vets and young players with good potential, they are more likely to attract free agent talent than a team that has a bunch of washed up vets, young kids with mediocre potential. They'll also have more assets to trade off the roster, and can more easily absorb trading away a prospect or pick for immediate help. The NHL is more competitive from top to bottom than it has been in its history.

I think we all can honestly look at their rosters and say that they are not making it, now there is the "punchers chance" that every team has. But how big of a surprise would it be if Chi plays more than 82 games this year.

Staying with the opinions of this board, how many players on this years Det roster get s*** on for their talent level. A lot of people gripe about Lilja, Lebda, etc, etc.

Not arguing with you just saying I don't think there is enough top tier talent to sustain more teams.

The 'contraction' argument is always posed because people are under the misconception that the league had a higher average talent level in the 80s, and that contracting the league would return to that type of play. That's hugely incorrect, as from 1972 to 1988 there were between 21 and 25 major pro teams made up almost entirely of Canadians, far more than the number of Canadian players playing major pro today, and the offensive game was a result of a talent divide between teams that had stockpiled talent and those that were stuck with a significant number of second-rate players. That was especially evident in the goaltending divide, such as a couple seasons when Edmonton goaltenders Grant Fuhr and Andy Moog would BOTH play for the Campbell Conference All-Stars. The NHL at the time only had a handful of goalies who would even start in today's NHL, and two of them were together on one team.

[BlakChamber 8]

And for those of you who ask how are you going to grow a sport's fan base without growing the league, ummmm TV!!!

Get a TV contract that will not stop coverage of a playoff game for a NASCAR race or a Basketball game. Put a game together that all teams are competitive. No one wants to sit around and watch a game they are not really interested in when the score is 6-1. That will not grow the fan base.

A good TV contract (which the NHL needs) can only get you so far. I've never felt the NHL translates well to TV, anyone will tell you it's much better live. If you want to grow the fanbase, you're going to need a game for people to go to. If the NHL wants to capture or even make any headway into the south and southwest markets, you're going to have to give people the chance to go see a game live. You mention NASCAR, one of the ways they became the #2 sports league in the country is expanding into untraditional markets.

[Opie 308]

What third or fourth liners are in Detroit's top six? Or Boston's for that matter? We're talking third or fourth liners as in from the 181st to 360th best forwards in the league, not third liners as in guys who would have been third line on the 2002 Wings team.

Flips is a top 6 forward, Franzen, Grigs, depending on what articles you read or who's interview you hear the top 6 has a lot different combos, because Det does not have enough top 6 forwards.

Well, if we figure the average NHL career lasts twelve years (sounds abour right) that means we need to fill 30 teams with 23 players from twelve years of drafts. So we need about 55-60 players per draft year to make the NHL to have the necessary number of players to sustain the league.

Not sure how to respond to this, not everyone's 12th year is as good as their 5-6th. You are making the assumption that players level of talent will never deplete. Injuries, age, attitude (think Yashin), are all factors for how well they play.

Mason and Vokoun played the same amount last season, and Mason played better. That's outplayed, plain and simple.

All I got is, sometimes teams play better in front of a worse goalie because the feel they need to do more to help him, than say a multiple time All-star who makes game changing saves look easy.

How is this different from any period in NHL history since the Original Six? The divide between good and bad teams has ALWAYS been there; You are acting like the worst teams in the league would be closer to the top teams in talent in a 21 team league than in a 30 team league...which is just not the case. The top teams would still be able to collect talent. If two teams are offering the same money, the player will often go to the team that has a better chance of winning. So if one team has been a top team for years, and has skilled vets and young players with good potential, they are more likely to attract free agent talent than a team that has a bunch of washed up vets, young kids with mediocre potential. They'll also have more assets to trade off the roster, and can more easily absorb trading away a prospect or pick for immediate help. The NHL is more competitive from top to bottom than it has been in its history.

I am not talking record wise yes that will be there. However the games themselves, the competition between the teams would be closer. Expansion is going to add 40-50 guys to the league, that are worse than anyone currently in the league, unless another Crosby/Ovechkin are found in the draft, correct?

The 'contraction' argument is always posed because people are under the misconception that the league had a higher average talent level in the 80s, and that contracting the league would return to that type of play. That's hugely incorrect, as from 1972 to 1988 there were between 21 and 25 major pro teams made up almost entirely of Canadians, far more than the number of Canadian players playing major pro today, and the offensive game was a result of a talent divide between teams that had stockpiled talent and those that were stuck with a significant number of second-rate players. That was especially evident in the goaltending divide, such as a couple seasons when Edmonton goaltenders Grant Fuhr and Andy Moog would BOTH play for the Campbell Conference All-Stars. The NHL at the time only had a handful of goalies who would even start in today's NHL, and two of them were together on one team.

Again I can not comment on the 70's or 80's, I am not in favor of contraction either, I think the league should try to get the 30 teams it has competitive on a yearly basis before they expand. You can not deny that there are teams in the league that fill there roster with lesser players, that are not nearly as talented as some. My argument is that there are players on the ice going against other 3-4th liners that are out classed. Det is lucky a guy like Wallin or Kuznetsov can be replaced because A. You are right people want to play for a contender, B. They have a deep talent Pool. Not every team is Det.

[BlakChamber 8]

Again I can not comment on the 70's or 80's, I am not in favor of contraction either, I think the league should try to get the 30 teams it has competitive on a yearly basis before they expand. You can not deny that there are teams in the league that fill there roster with lesser players, that are not nearly as talented as some. My argument is that there are players on the ice going against other 3-4th liners that are out classed. Det is lucky a guy like Wallin or Kuznetsov can be replaced because A. You are right people want to play for a contender, B. They have a deep talent Pool. Not every team is Det.

How do you define having all 30 teams competitive? There's no league in the US, probably the world, where every team has a legitimate shot to win the championship every year, it's unrealistic to expect the NHL could be like that. There's always going to be the haves and have-nots.

[Opie 308]

NFL????

[Guest jaytan]

To reiterate the point, AGAIN, in 1989, there were 20 teams worth of Canadian talent in the NHL. There are 16 teams worth of Canadian talent in the NHL now. So unless the Canadian product has gotten worse (blasphemy in Canada) that means there's at the very least four teams worth of NHLers not in the league. If we assume the shut-out talent is proportional in Europeans and Americans, then that means we have over seven teams worth of NHL-caliber players who are not in the league right now. Yes, it takes generations to grow talent...but we don't need to grow talent--we already have it. The NHL right now could probably support 36 or 38 teams with comparable average talent to the 1980s. Now, that number of teams is kinda silly..but 32 is a good number that lends itself well to divisions and scheduling.

So basically, you're making my point. We need to limit the amount of foreign players on NHL teams. This way, we don't have overpaid Russians on the fourth line taking up homegrown talent's ice time and giving fans fewer players to be attached to.