• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
LeftWinger

Can We Please Stop Putting Teams In Unsustainable Cities?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

http://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2016/11/hurricanes-relocation-possible.html

 

Quote

Now, according to 98.5 Sports in Montreal (link in French), Karmanos is still actively pursuing a sale of the team and is willing to sell to a buyer looking to move the ’Canes out of North Carolina. Naturally, with an NHL-caliber arena and no tenant, Quebec City immediately comes to mind as a potential landing spot should relocation become an option.

How long until Las Vegas moves too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overreact much? Can Vega$ play its first game/season before people predict its demise?

Also, I guess Hartford was a bad market too since they moved to Carolina from there.. but but but, Hartford is in the *gasp* NORTHEAST!!

FTA:  (7:50pm): Hurricanes team president Don Waddell called an in-game press conference tonight to deny the rumors of relocation, tweets Luke DeCock of The Raleigh News & Observer. In a second tweet, DeCock reports that Waddell also indicated that there had been nothing on the sales front in “four to five months.”

Edited by FireCaptain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FireCaptain said:

Overreact much? Can Vega$ play its first game/season before people predict its demise?

Also, I guess Hartford was a bad market too since they moved to Carolina from there.. but but but, Hartford is in the *gasp* NORTHEAST!!

FTA:  (7:50pm): Hurricanes team president Don Waddell called an in-game press conference tonight to deny the rumors of relocation, tweets Luke DeCock of The Raleigh News & Observer. In a second tweet, DeCock reports that Waddell also indicated that there had been nothing on the sales front in “four to five months.”

There's a reason why no pro sports teams have ever had a team in Vegas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHL has too many teams. More teams than talent. Makes for bad hockey-which we have been seeing for 15 years now. This is the biggest reason why scoring is down.

As for moving teams, Seattle, Milwaukee, QC, Hamilton, and here is the shocker Grand Rapids will all have a team over the next 15 years. Yes the Canes will move, maybe the Yotes, I can see one of the NYC teams moving, LV after it fails and one of the Florida teams could also move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying Vegas is going to move, I was just saying that because it seems that these teams that go where its not really a hockey hotbed, seem to be the first ones to go elsewhere.  Yes, Quebec and Hartford are examples of teams in an established city, but for the most part, these teams that move move again after a while...or at least we hear that they are up for sale and may possibly move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Richdg said:

The NHL has too many teams. More teams than talent. Makes for bad hockey-which we have been seeing for 15 years now. This is the biggest reason why scoring is down.

As for moving teams, Seattle, Milwaukee, QC, Hamilton, and here is the shocker Grand Rapids will all have a team over the next 15 years. Yes the Canes will move, maybe the Yotes, I can see one of the NYC teams moving, LV after it fails and one of the Florida teams could also move.

I'm sorry but this is laughable. The quality of players in 2016 is so much better then what it was in 15 years ago. I recently watched the 2002 Wings Stanley Cup run and as good as they were in comparison to the teams they faced, so many times I was thinking "wow these shots would never go in now a days". It was a much slower game. The only thing more teams does (with the cap) is it balances out the skill meaning your best teams then were much better then your best teams now in comparison to the rest of the league.

Out of curiosity, your opinion of Grand Rapids having a team in 15 years, what is this based on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quebec City should get a team before anyone else. They should have before Vegas. That city losing their Nordiques who became the Avalanche and won a cup two years after the move with the roster mostly already in place when they left (Roy was arguably the final piece) still stings i'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kliq said:

I'm sorry but this is laughable. The quality of players in 2016 is so much better then what it was in 15 years ago. I recently watched the 2002 Wings Stanley Cup run and as good as they were in comparison to the teams they faced, so many times I was thinking "wow these shots would never go in now a days". It was a much slower game. The only thing more teams does (with the cap) is it balances out the skill meaning your best teams then were much better then your best teams now in comparison to the rest of the league.

Out of curiosity, your opinion of Grand Rapids having a team in 15 years, what is this based on?

To many teams=talent spread to thin. Very simple.

As for GR the city is already on the minds of the NBA and NHL. When the Grizzlies(NBA) left Vancouver it came down to Memphis and GR. Memphis got the team. The Griffins are one of the top AHL teams year after year and there is big time money (De Vos and Van Andel families) that are sports fans and want to own more teams. The De Vos's own the NBA Magic, a minority share of the Cubs, the Griffins, and there was/is interest in the NFL Lions. None of those teams will be relocated to GR. They do want teams here. If I was a betting man I would bet on 1. a NHL team and then 2. a MLS team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Richdg said:

The NHL has too many teams. More teams than talent. Makes for bad hockey-which we have been seeing for 15 years now. This is the biggest reason why scoring is down.

As for moving teams, Seattle, Milwaukee, QC, Hamilton, and here is the shocker Grand Rapids will all have a team over the next 15 years. Yes the Canes will move, maybe the Yotes, I can see one of the NYC teams moving, LV after it fails and one of the Florida teams could also move.

Completely disagree. Scoring being down is all about the advancement of the goaltending position. I think the general caliber of players is also better so that individual players seldom dominate as in the past. Defensive players are more skilled now and the defensive part of the game has also developed. There's a much larger talent pool to draw from now with some European nations developing their hockey communities and the growth of the game in the states. It's not the same talent pool being spread thinner.

Edited by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Richdg said:

To many teams=talent spread to thin. Very simple.

You could use that argument to say the NHL should go back to 6 teams, but it shouldn't happen.

With all of the talent out there from Canada, The US, Finland, Sweden, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sweden, Russia, etc. There are more then enough talented players to fill out the rosters of 30 teams and its not like the majority of the players that are in the NHL don't deserve to be there, and really how much better is the 350th best player in the NHL to the 410th. If anything, with less teams I could see some of the kids that deserve a shot being SOL. The Sproul's and AA's of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chaps80 said:

Quebec City should get a team before anyone else.

Why should a city that couldn't previously support a hockey team get first dibs? Just because it's Canadian? Because it snows? That logic is backwards. While I don't agree that the league should expand I think it's a lot more fair to say a market that hasn't had a chance to have a hockey team deserves one before one that has already had a chance and has failed. As for new markets in general I don't think the "we should never try anything new and just keep things the same as they always are" argument is a very provocative one. Trying and failing is better than not trying at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when the factors that contributed to the failure are no longer a problem, IF it is the best option moving forward, should the NHL not move their out of principle? 

From my understanding and I admit I am no expert on this, the two main reasons the franchise failed were because of the at the time plummeting Canadian dollar, and even more so the failure from the city/province to help build a new arena. Pittsburgh had a similar issue in the early 2000's and teased moving, when you don't have an arena that is set up to bring in big money, it can absolutely sink you. In 2015 QC opened their new 18,259 seat arena The Videotron Centre which from what I read is NHL ready, or will be soon.

They have the established fan base, why not go there?

I believe that the key to having hockey succeed in a city is when hockey is ingrained in its culture. What I mean by that, is a city where a large percentage of the kids grow up playing hockey and watching hockey, then when these kids grow up, hockey is huge part of their lives and it passes down generation to generation. I'm guessing a large percentage of the posters here grew up somewhere where as kids they played road hockey, pond hockey, or in a league. The cities that have this as a major part in their culture have a higher probability of succeeding then places that don't. Cities like Atlanta, Phoenix/Glendale, and likely Vegas IMO don't have this. Hockey can succeed in a market like I just described but it's less likely, and when you have too many, your playing with fire. and are bound to run into failures.

The NHL should not got to QC because its in Canada or because its cold, they should go there because QC is a place that in 2016 gives the team a high percentage change of succeeding. 

Edited by kliq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Z and D for the C said:

Why should a city that couldn't previously support a hockey team get first dibs? Just because it's Canadian? Because it snows? That logic is backwards. While I don't agree that the league should expand I think it's a lot more fair to say a market that hasn't had a chance to have a hockey team deserves one before one that has already had a chance and has failed. As for new markets in general I don't think the "we should never try anything new and just keep things the same as they always are" argument is a very provocative one. Trying and failing is better than not trying at all.

For starters - the people of Quebec City always showed up for home games, and in general had strongly supported their club...But like Winnipeg - their respective owners back in the mid 1990's didn't have the cash flow, nor did they want to spend it on new arenas, and the value of the Canadian $$$ wasn't very good.

All that said - Bettman, and the BOG had raging hard ons to promote the game in the USA - so why not take the so called 'failing franchises' in QC, and Winnipeg to markets more profitable?

For what it's worth - Atlanta has had 2 NHL franchises (Flames, and Thrashers), and it's Colorado's 2nd time around (Rockies, and now the Avs) - so saying that neither Winnipeg, nor QC should have another go is a bit short sighted - especially considering what support they had previous to their teams relocation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2016 at 7:40 AM, Hockeymom1960 said:

There's a reason why no pro sports teams have ever had a team in Vegas

From what I have read it's due mostly to the accessibility of gambling on the hometown team and 'Pete Rose' type fears. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brett said:

i really dont see why the nhl needs more teams. like others said too many teams not enough talent

Once LV arrives, you will have 4 divisions with 8, 8, 8, and 7 respectively, I can't see them not evening it up. Another team is coming.

There is plenty of talent to make room for 1 more team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2016 at 6:22 PM, Richdg said:

To many teams=talent spread to thin. Very simple.

As for GR the city is already on the minds of the NBA and NHL. When the Grizzlies(NBA) left Vancouver it came down to Memphis and GR. Memphis got the team. The Griffins are one of the top AHL teams year after year and there is big time money (De Vos and Van Andel families) that are sports fans and want to own more teams. The De Vos's own the NBA Magic, a minority share of the Cubs, the Griffins, and there was/is interest in the NFL Lions. None of those teams will be relocated to GR. They do want teams here. If I was a betting man I would bet on 1. a NHL team and then 2. a MLS team.

There is no way GR would get an NHL team.

 

- The market is too small

- They don't have an NHL-sized arena and wouldn't build a new one any time soon

- Most importantly - the main reason why they have such a great turn-out and a high quality product on-ice is because of the RED WINGS. If they had their own separate team, they wouldn't have nearly as many fans, as most would stay loyal to the Wings (and to a much lesser extent, the Blackhawks). The city simply isn't big enough or isolated enough to grow a brand new fan base when the potential fans grew up following a team with 80+ years of tradition just a couple hours away.

 

I would agree that MLS would be a possibility though, especially since Detroit's never really did anything with the potential expansion interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/11/2016 at 7:57 PM, Z and D for the C said:

Why should a city that couldn't previously support a hockey team get first dibs? Just because it's Canadian? Because it snows? That logic is backwards. While I don't agree that the league should expand I think it's a lot more fair to say a market that hasn't had a chance to have a hockey team deserves one before one that has already had a chance and has failed. As for new markets in general I don't think the "we should never try anything new and just keep things the same as they always are" argument is a very provocative one. Trying and failing is better than not trying at all.

Winnipeg is a perfect example why a city that couldn't support a team previously should get a team again. Things are better than ever there, and they're a team on the rise with a huge loyal fanbase. Quebec City has a new arena, and they've been trying to get an NHL team back for years. Just because a team failed there once, doesn't mean it will again. Most of the pieces were already in place for a cup run in Quebec and things were looking up finally, fans were excited, then all of a sudden the owner had to sell the team due to being unable to build a new arena, the CAN/US exchange rate, and the league not having a salary cap. The franchise was sold, and Nords fans had to watch their former team win a cup the spring after they were moved as the Avalanche. Now two of those three challenges to keeping the team there have since been rectified. Vegas will end up as the Arizona franchise is..it's a non-hockey market that will need to be bailed out, while Quebec is a huge market that will be supported.

On 19/11/2016 at 10:11 PM, F.Michael said:

For starters - the people of Quebec City always showed up for home games, and in general had strongly supported their club...But like Winnipeg - their respective owners back in the mid 1990's didn't have the cash flow, nor did they want to spend it on new arenas, and the value of the Canadian $$$ wasn't very good.

All that said - Bettman, and the BOG had raging hard ons to promote the game in the USA - so why not take the so called 'failing franchises' in QC, and Winnipeg to markets more profitable?

For what it's worth - Atlanta has had 2 NHL franchises (Flames, and Thrashers), and it's Colorado's 2nd time around (Rockies, and now the Avs) - so saying that neither Winnipeg, nor QC should have another go is a bit short sighted - especially considering what support they had previous to their teams relocation.

:thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Swayze said:

There is no way GR would get an NHL team.

 

- The market is too small

- They don't have an NHL-sized arena and wouldn't build a new one any time soon

- Most importantly - the main reason why they have such a great turn-out and a high quality product on-ice is because of the RED WINGS. If they had their own separate team, they wouldn't have nearly as many fans, as most would stay loyal to the Wings (and to a much lesser extent, the Blackhawks). The city simply isn't big enough or isolated enough to grow a brand new fan base when the potential fans grew up following a team with 80+ years of tradition just a couple hours away.

 

I would agree that MLS would be a possibility though, especially since Detroit's never really did anything with the potential expansion interest.

Wrong. GR is bigger than Buffalo, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and QC. The Van Andel Arena was designed to be expanded to 15,000+ fans. If they decided to build a new one anyone of the De Vos or Van Andel families could write a check for $300 million tomorrow and have it done.

Back in the late 1990's Harvey Gainey was trying to buy the Penguins with the intent of moving them here. That was before they got their new arena. It will happen at some point in time. The only question is when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this