should there be another team in the NHL?

[luvmnger 125]

this year seems to have a plethora of skilled players available, yet no one is signing them....do you guys think that this is because of the higher rate of young, able players being drafted/inserted into lineups for basement contracts, or is it the imposed salary cap structures that the lower teams are keeping that prevents the mid line players from getting picked up?

or are the top level players just grabbing too much cash and strapping the team to the bargain bin player for the bottom 2 lines?

so, would the addition of 1-2 teams keep talent in the line ups across the league, or risk diluting the quality on ice product?

i for one think that another team in an ESTABLISHED market would help keep the players from heading to Russia, or consider retiring/minor league play.

for example...Stempniak and Afinogenov....both qualified players that could suit up for any team...but aren't signed yet. they don't want 6 mil. but they wont play for 750K. so where do they go?

Hartford....Toronto x2...Quebec....Las Vegas...New Orleans...Hamilton?

i used to think that expansion just dilutes the quality of the NHL....but i am now understanding that the US is putting out a lot more talent and will do so throughout the years. the NHL will lose the "high quality" standard that it is trying to keep if the next "ovechkin" says that the mid level quality has risen in Russia and has begun to balance the NHL product...why move across the pond.

so, what does everyone else think...am i out in left field or is this a common feeling.

[cjm502 165]

No, there is other professional leagues that would be more than willing to employ these players. If they are not signed there is always a reason. Age, asking price, injury history, etc... The KHL gobbles these guys up. Keep less teams, improve the quality of hockey in the league.

[eva unit zero 271]

The NHL needs to offer expansion teams for these players. Yes, I know we all hate expansion, but think about it seriously. If we take the current group of foreign players who are in the NHL, then we have fewer talented players. But the problem is, the foreign players overseas provide a larger percentage of that player group than we had before. So by offering the expansion teams, we keep more players here and, more importantly we keep the YOUNGER players here.

Two expansion teams is all we need. The biggest question is who can we get to provide the kind of cash? Balsille, Reinsdorf, and others might be in the runnings, but who knows.

[luvmnger 125]

i agree 100% eva....i have always liked your insight.

if the mid level players keep leaving...the NHL will loose its luster.

2 was the exact number i was thinking.

but where oh where?

hartford whalers

las vegas gamblers

ha!

[irishtemper14+25 11]

Winnipeg and Seattle/Las Vegas are my votes

[Original-Six 254]

No thanks the NHL already over expanded has has a plethora of financially unstable teams as a result. Players that leave to play in Europe chose to do so because thats where they rather play or because they cant hack in the NHL.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Original-Six

[Rebound 22]

If this was a multiple-choice survey, I'd pick "D: For the love of God no!"

[Gordie Howe hat trick 110]

We don't need any more teams that will be floundering in the sea of mediocrity than we already do. Fix those first before you even think of diluting the talent further with new teams.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Gordie Howe hat trick

[hckypete96 3]

We don't need any more teams that will be floundering in the sea of mediocrity than we already do. Fix those first before you even think of diluting the talent further with new teams.

this. the NHL needs to relocate or just cut loose the teams that are in poor markets as is, not keep expanding. this is the best league in the world, it should be competitive (especially as a goalie)

[DEVILSWATERBOY 10]

it Is simple no more teams, maybe get rid of 1 or 2 and move a few back where they came from Quebec, Hartford and Winnipeg

[stevkrause 1,247]

No, there is other professional leagues that would be more than willing to employ these players. If they are not signed there is always a reason. Age, asking price, injury history, etc... The KHL gobbles these guys up. Keep less teams, improve the quality of hockey in the league.

This is dead on, the real solution, I think is to expand rosters to 24 for the regular season and thus adjust the salary cap by about 800k - If these players that are left want to play in the NHL bad enough, they will lower their price tag to make it happen...

I also think a key solution could be the luxury tax system I have proposed in the past:

http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/index.php/topic/65289-luxury-tax-system

I had some time to think about it, and made some amendments to the guidelines, but I still think this would help make the league a LOT better across the board:

1. Teams can exceed the cap by up to 10% of the cap, but must match dollar for dollar for every amount they go over (ex. if a team goes over the cap by 5 million, they must pay an additional 5 million into a league revenue sharing program)

2. All the money generated by teams utilizing the Luxury Tax will be dispersed to all the other teams in the NHL which are ONLY ABOVE the cap floor by 50% or less (ex. If the cap floor is 50 million and the ceiling is 70 million - all teams with a cap of 60 million or less would get an equal cut of the Luxury Tax pool, as opted)

3. ALL TEAMS which receive money from this Luxury Tax pool get a new, modified floor and MUST exceed the cap floor by at least 110% of the Luxury Tax money they were given (ex. If the cap floor is 50 million and Team X receives 1 million in Luxury Tax sharing, their new cap floor becomes 51.1 million) or they can opt for only a percentage of the revenue sharing revenue offered (under the same guidelines as above, 110% rule, etc, etc) or opt out of the revenue sharing all together and the revenue would then get dispersed to the rest of the qualifying teams - If for any reason there were revenue left over from the revenue sharing system, it would get evenly split between the 30 teams and has no salary cap implications(basically it would just go back into the owner's pockets)

4. Teams are given a home grown cap relief player - Every team can designate ONE player on their roster which is given a "Franchise Tag"(player must have been drafted by the team to qualify) - 20% of this players salary will NOT count against the cap (this applies to both the floor and the ceiling) but WILL count towards the luxury tax total if it takes the team over the cap - This tag must be applied yearly (ex. If player X was tagged in 2009, it does not mean they are automatically tagged in 2010 and the team can opt to tag a different player, if desired) - They still cannot exceed the league max contract and if they are traded, the team absorbing the contract absorbs 100% of the contract as the cap hit

I think this system would actually pump MORE money into the league from the bigger teams which are willing to pay it, however, since it has a HARD cap value of only 10% over, teams will not be able to go out and just buy up all the talent in the league, or simply throw money at their problems (ala NY Yankees) - Also, the smaller markets would be given more money, which they would HAVE to spend on their team, to improve their on ice talent... this also encourages players to stay where they came from, thus letting markets attach themselves to players closer and fan bases to have investments in individual players (good for marketing)

I don't see how this could do anything but positive things for the league and think, if anything, it would actually create BETTER parity...

Edited August 13, 2010 by stevkrause

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Franchise transfer is the answer. And what's the total now of players who went to the KHL, only to return to the League? At best, that league is a house of cards.

[xtrememachine1 795]

Absolutely not. The NHL has too many teams as it is now. Ever since the Columbus, Nashville, Minnesota, Atlanta expansion there has been a noticeable drop in the quality of the teams. Take a look at the teams of the 80's and the early to mid 90's. They were loaded with talent. There were 30 goal scorers on the third line. Plus, every team was competitive and had stars worth paying to see. What players on Nashville, Minnesota and Atlanta are worth the price of the ticket right now? Columbus has Rick Nash, otherwise they wouldn't have anyone worth watching either. If anything, the NHL needs less teams to improve as a product.

[NomadFromKazoo 42]

No, there are too many teams, not too few. They should shut down about a half dozen.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

A lot of those proposed rule changes the League is tinkering with will make great improvements in the quality of the on-ice product; I laugh.

[stevkrause 1,247]

Absolutely not. The NHL has too many teams as it is now. Ever since the Columbus, Nashville, Minnesota, Atlanta expansion there has been a noticeable drop in the quality of the teams. Take a look at the teams of the 80's and the early to mid 90's. They were loaded with talent. There were 30 goal scorers on the third line. Plus, every team was competitive and had stars worth paying to see. What players on Nashville, Minnesota and Atlanta are worth the price of the ticket right now? Columbus has Rick Nash, otherwise they wouldn't have anyone worth watching either. If anything, the NHL needs less teams to improve as a product.

I disagree, the overall defensive game and the quality of goal-tending has DRASTICALLY improved since then (not to mention equipment and technology behind it) and you can't judge everything by point totals... just because guys were putting up insane numbers does not equate to a better on-ice product - The NHL was primarily all NA players through the 80's and it wasn't until the mid 90's that it really expanded to a world wide talent pool... I think the quality of players in the game today is FAR better than it was back then and if you put both talent pools AS A WHOLE into one league, in their primes, today's pool(AS A WHOLE) would destroy the talent pool(AS A WHOLE) from back then(keep in mind, I'm saying AS A WHOLE... there have always been individuals that are exceptions to the rule, that would have most likely excelled regardless of the scenario - Gretzky, Bossy, Lemieux, Messier, etc...)

Edited August 13, 2010 by stevkrause

[Wombat 26]

I think there is definitely enough talent in the world to support two more NHL-caliber teams. Franchises are floundering not because of lack of talent (league-wide) on the ice, but through poor management. Teams in non-traditional markets that have come in and been successful tend to do average to well in the NHL. The teams that are dragging the league down are the non-traditional markets that keep putting a bad product out there because of bad management. And some of those markets may now have been close to ruined by the bad franchises.

In my opinion, too many of these new teams keep trying to build via youth movements, and I don't think that works very well unless you luck into a few top-20 talents (not top 20 draft picks, but players that are within the top 20 players in all the NHL). Players learn a lot by having veterans around that both contribute on the ice and off. I think a main reason the Wings are so successful is because of how veteran heavy the lineup is. It allows good young players to develop in a less pressure-packed space.

I'm not necessarily pro-expansion... in fact I wouldn't mind if a few teams were contracted. But there is enough talent out there. By hook or crook, I think it would behoove the league greatly to add a 2nd team in metro Toronto. Also, the NHL should establish a team in Seattle while basketball is gone. Las Vegas is ready for a professional team. I think Winnipeg could be a viable market. Portland might also be a fun city to have a team (they are passionate NBA fans). I could also be talked into Kansas City. A combination of franchise moves and expansion could work well.

[stevkrause 1,247]

I think there is definitely enough talent in the world to support two more NHL-caliber teams. Franchises are floundering not because of lack of talent (league-wide) on the ice, but through poor management. Teams in non-traditional markets that have come in and been successful tend to do average to well in the NHL. The teams that are dragging the league down are the non-traditional markets that keep putting a bad product out there because of bad management. And some of those markets may now have been close to ruined by the bad franchises.

In my opinion, too many of these new teams keep trying to build via youth movements, and I don't think that works very well unless you luck into a few top-20 talents (not top 20 draft picks, but players that are within the top 20 players in all the NHL). Players learn a lot by having veterans around that both contribute on the ice and off. I think a main reason the Wings are so successful is because of how veteran heavy the lineup is. It allows good young players to develop in a less pressure-packed space.

I'm not necessarily pro-expansion... in fact I wouldn't mind if a few teams were contracted. But there is enough talent out there. By hook or crook, I think it would behoove the league greatly to add a 2nd team in metro Toronto. Also, the NHL should establish a team in Seattle while basketball is gone. Las Vegas is ready for a professional team. I think Winnipeg could be a viable market. Portland might also be a fun city to have a team (they are passionate NBA fans). I could also be talked into Kansas City. A combination of franchise moves and expansion could work well.

I think Winnipeg could DEFINITELY handle another NHL team - their economy has done a 180 since they lost the Jets and Manitoba (which is further north) is consistently in the highest attendance in the AHL... another market I think would flourish, that no one even looks at, is Wisconsin... they have a TON of hockey fans there and their college team is always pretty successful... with that said, I think, if anything, the NHL should relocate 2 of Phoenix, Atlanta or Florida to these markets however though, rather than expanding... also, I think another team in the Toronto area is a bad idea as well...

[Seraph 240]

The way the CBA is set up, any new team will impose a big drain of talent from the rest of the league. The way business is done, teams are now handing out 2 or maybe 3 fat, long-term contracts, and juggling the rest with arbitration and lower salary contracts. It makes it much more difficult for new talented players to find a team that will hand them an elite, long-term contract. Take for example Hossa. It took him several tries in Pittsburgh and Detroit before he found a team that would give him a long-term contract with a nice salary. I think as soon as another expansion team is set-up, players who have the talent but just can't find the right team will suddenly be drawn to the opportunity of scoring a big contract. This will take pressure off of these players from accepting smaller sum contracts on established teams and dilute the talent pool.

In the end I think the solution will be to move failing teams to better markets. For what it's worth, I'd really like to see a Seattle/Portland team.

[Electrophile 3,554]

Dear God, no. There's too many teams as it is. Not that I think the league should go back to the Original 6 and tell everyone else to eff off, but more than 30? This isn't baseball.

[blgillett 48]

No we have to many teams that can't pull their own weight aka.Coyotes.

[MulesWillFly93 199]

Just throwing things out here, but it seems to me like if the salary cap wasn't such a hindrance, more of the free agent talent out there wouldn't have such a problem getting signed, and then we wouldn't need more teams.

That said, I think Winnipeg should definitely have a team, whether they get their Jets back from Phoenix or have to start another team.

I'm on the fence about Seattle...it seems like a great environment for hockey, but I have no idea how many people there are actually hockey fans, and their population is kind of small. If they can do a study that shows they have a high proportion of hockey fans in the population, then heck yeah, go for it. Thrashers, anyone?

I think Las Vegas is a big no way. It'll be just like the Coyotes problem. And unlike L.A., Anaheim, and Phoenix, where you have people driving from out of the area to go to games (like me), nobody is going to drive 5 hours to Vegas just to see a hockey game when the majority of people who go there already have a team that's way closer to them. Sure, I suppose they might show up to a game if they're already visiting the city, but that doesn't do much to build a loyal fanbase. I just don't see it. Plus, I could be totally wrong about this, but my impression is that Las Vegas doesn't get as many snowbirds as Phoenix does. So while you have a bunch of Northern hockey fans in Phoenix looking for a fix who might break down and go to Yotes games, I don't think the same would happen on such a widespread basis in Vegas.

[jollymania 162]

no way

[NomadFromKazoo 42]

No we have to many teams that can't pull their own weight aka.Coyotes.

That's the problem, not the availability of talent, the availability of viable sites. They can't compete and they're driving the Cap down because they don't generate the revenue to compete.

[HankthaTank 1,100]

That's the problem, not the availability of talent, the availability of viable sites. They can't compete and they're driving the Cap down because they don't generate the revenue to compete.

^ This times 3 billion. The competition has been great recently but its the cities that couldn't tell a puck from a hostess king dong that need to go. More Canadian teams please.