CSNbbs

Full Version: OT: Next up on the expansion train - the NHL
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Now that the Pittsburgh Penguins have claimed their fourth Stanley Cup in franchise history (hallowed be thy name), expansion now moves to the top of the NHL's agenda.

Here are 10 bold expansion predictions from reading a lot of stories and the tea leaves:

1.) The NHL will announce in June that it is expanding for the 2017–18 season. That means that we are about to see a flurry of trades league-wide as teams try to prepare for the expansion draft and protect themselves from losing valuable assets for nothing.

2.) The NHL will also announce in June it is going to expand to Las Vegas but it will not expand to any other city...yet.

3.) When Seattle gets its act together regarding a new arena in that city, they will get the NHL's 32nd team. I think they're probably two years away on that front.

4.) The Las Vegas expansion team will be extremely successful. This is nothing like the Arizona situation – which is mostly an issue of arena location. This arena is right on the Vegas strip and it will be extremely popular for home and visiting fans.

That Las Vegas team is going to have a hell of a home ice advantage, I can tell you that much.

5.) Quebec City will eventually get a team but it won't be for a few years and it will be through relocation, not expansion. My bet is that it will either be Florida or Carolina but it won't happen until the Canadian dollar recovers and each of the existing markets has been fully exhausted.

6.) Depending on who moves, that could spark further realignment.

7.) The Oakland Raiders are moving to Las Vegas and that will happen sooner rather than later and the announcement of the move is going to come quicker than some seem to realize.

8.) The NFL will be fabulously successful in Las Vegas. Visiting fans will regularly flow into the city to take advantage of all of the things that it has the offer. Raiders fans from California will also make it over, and tourists from elsewhere will attend those games as well - and that's before even mention the people that already live and/or work in Las Vegas.

Honestly, this is the best possible outcome, IMO.

9.) The Chargers are going to build a brand new stadium in San Diego.

10.) Ten years from now, the Los Angeles Rams will still be the only team in the nation's second-largest media market.
Las Vegas, Seattle, and Quebec City have been the most popular cities for expansion or relocation. I remember seeing a story on Toronto considering a second team.

I don't think they should expand unless the talent pool is there. Adding teams just add teams is pointless without the players. If teams stink, no one will care.
Agree that with enough teams talking about maybe needing to relocate, it may not be wise to expand heavily.

Las Vegas seems to be a given it will get an expansion team, but I agree the NHL should stop with expansion there and let the other cities get teams through relocation.
Highly doubt the raiders would turn down la for Vegas if the Chargers stay in San Diego

Vegas will get an nhl team. Seattle does make sense for one.

If Quebec gets a team from Carolina I'd expect a Florida team to be moved to the other eastern division
(06-14-2016 08:22 AM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]Las Vegas, Seattle, and Quebec City have been the most popular cities for expansion or relocation. I remember seeing a story on Toronto considering a second team.

I don't think they should expand unless the talent pool is there. Adding teams just add teams is pointless without the players. If teams stink, no one will care.

I have never understood the talent pool argument. The number of teams the market can handle determines the level of talent in the league, not the other way around.

The population as a whole keeps growing, so if they never expanded, the level of talent would be relatively higher compared to years ago.
Las Vegas, Black Knights, is getting a team and Quebec isn't right now. Not sure how 31 works but that's the plan in the short term. I would agree Seattle gets team 32 with a new arena and Quebec will get a relocated team. I would be surprised if Florida moves so most likely Carolina although columbus isn't doing to hot. I don't believe the LA rams will be the sole tenant, chargers or Raiders will move in, still doubtful the NFL moves to vegas.
(06-14-2016 08:44 AM)goofus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-14-2016 08:22 AM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]Las Vegas, Seattle, and Quebec City have been the most popular cities for expansion or relocation. I remember seeing a story on Toronto considering a second team.

I don't think they should expand unless the talent pool is there. Adding teams just add teams is pointless without the players. If teams stink, no one will care.

I have never understood the talent pool argument. The number of teams the market can handle determines the level of talent in the league, not the other way around.

The population as a whole keeps growing, so if they never expanded, the level of talent would be relatively higher compared to years ago.

Baseball got kind of sloppy for a while with inadequate pitching when they expanding too quickly in the late 60s/70s. The quality of play in basketball went down for a while in that same era with the ABA forming and the NBA expanding rapidly. So the product isn't as good and serious fans notice.
I like all of these predictions!

Especially the part about Las Vegas getting an NHL team and the Raiders. If they're willing to build the facilities, they should get the teams! I agree that a market should only need one pro sports franchise.

So for that matter, move the Clippers to Vegas too! (and move the Angels and A's to two other Western markets, Portland and Sacramento??)


I also like the part about San Diego building a new stadium for the Chargers. As it should be! Take that, anti-spending crowd in San Diego! Ha Ha!

As far as Seattle goes: I know nothing about the progress for building a new arena there, but I hope they build it next to their NFL and MLB stadiums. That section of the town is perfectly set up as a "stadium village" and that's where it should go! They should get an NFL and NBA franchise, if/when they build a new arena.
(06-14-2016 07:19 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: [ -> ]Now that the Pittsburgh Penguins have claimed their fourth Stanley Cup in franchise history (hallowed be thy name), expansion now moves to the top of the NHL's agenda.

Here are 10 bold expansion predictions from reading a lot of stories and the tea leaves:

1.) The NHL will announce in June that it is expanding for the 2017–18 season. That means that we are about to see a flurry of trades league-wide as teams try to prepare for the expansion draft and protect themselves from losing valuable assets for nothing.

2.) The NHL will also announce in June it is going to expand to Las Vegas but it will not expand to any other city...yet.

3.) When Seattle gets its act together regarding a new arena in that city, they will get the NHL's 32nd team. I think they're probably two years away on that front.

4.) The Las Vegas expansion team will be extremely successful. This is nothing like the Arizona situation – which is mostly an issue of arena location. This arena is right on the Vegas strip and it will be extremely popular for home and visiting fans.

That Las Vegas team is going to have a hell of a home ice advantage, I can tell you that much.

5.) Quebec City will eventually get a team but it won't be for a few years and it will be through relocation, not expansion. My bet is that it will either be Florida or Carolina but it won't happen until the Canadian dollar recovers and each of the existing markets has been fully exhausted.

6.) Depending on who moves, that could spark further realignment.

7.) The Oakland Raiders are moving to Las Vegas and that will happen sooner rather than later and the announcement of the move is going to come quicker than some seem to realize.

8.) The NFL will be fabulously successful in Las Vegas. Visiting fans will regularly flow into the city to take advantage of all of the things that it has the offer. Raiders fans from California will also make it over, and tourists from elsewhere will attend those games as well - and that's before even mention the people that already live and/or work in Las Vegas.

Honestly, this is the best possible outcome, IMO.

9.) The Chargers are going to build a brand new stadium in San Diego.

10.) Ten years from now, the Los Angeles Rams will still be the only team in the nation's second-largest media market.


That Stanley Cup victory was certainly well enjoyed by this Pittsburgh area kid.

Go Pens!

Now if Pirates can right the ship this season and the Steelers win the Super Bowl, all will be right with the world again.
I just don't see Canes moving from Raleigh. It's a good market with a long term contract on the arena, the front office just needs to find some wins to get folks back in the seats. A lot of hockey fans here but the avg joe wants success. Most feel good about Ron Francis getting some momentum in the right direction.
(06-14-2016 09:41 AM)ApexNiner Wrote: [ -> ]I just don't see Canes moving from Raleigh. It's a good market with a long term contract on the arena, the front office just needs to find some wins to get folks back in the seats. A lot of hockey fans here but the avg joe wants success. Most feel good about Ron Francis getting some momentum in the right direction.

The problem is Peter Karmanos is allegedly in financial trouble, and with his grown sons suing him for borrowing money from their trust, it seems like the rumors are true.

His once ridiculous asking price for the Canes looks better now that we know what the expansion fees will be, and if he can't find a buyer that wants to keep the team in Raleigh, then there's really nothing we can do to keep the team here.

With all that said, I personally think the odds they leave are LOW, but it's definitely possible.
(06-14-2016 08:40 AM)Ragu Wrote: [ -> ]Highly doubt the raiders would turn down la for Vegas if the Chargers stay in San Diego

Vegas will get an nhl team. Seattle does make sense for one.

If Quebec gets a team from Carolina I'd expect a Florida team to be moved to the other eastern division

It's also hard to see the Rams as the only team in LA -- they probably don't want to build the stadium & complex without a tenant. If the Chargers don't move back to LA, the Raiders will leave Las Vegas for LA.
(06-14-2016 08:22 AM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]Las Vegas, Seattle, and Quebec City have been the most popular cities for expansion or relocation. I remember seeing a story on Toronto considering a second team.

I don't think they should expand unless the talent pool is there. Adding teams just add teams is pointless without the players. If teams stink, no one will care.

This. I'd actually argue the NHL would be better served shoring up it's core by contracting by 2 teams. Since that will definitely not happen, relocation is a must. First, get the hell out of Arizona already. Move them to Las Vegas or even Seattle. Then move Florida to Quebec City. Quebec City has a brand spanking new arena purpose built for hockey in a market that actually loves hockey. If expansion is really the way to go then I say give the new squads to Quebec City and Las Vegas. Move Arizona to Seattle. Move Florida elsewhere. I would even consider moving Carolina, but when Carolina puts a good team on the ice, they do alright attendance-wise. And that would seem to only be boosted given the new division alignment which puts the 5 PA-NY-NJ teams in town more often given the number of ex-pats from these areas in the triangle.
(06-14-2016 07:19 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: [ -> ]Now that the Pittsburgh Penguins have claimed their fourth Stanley Cup in franchise history (hallowed be thy name), expansion now moves to the top of the NHL's agenda.

Here are 10 bold expansion predictions from reading a lot of stories and the tea leaves:

1.) The NHL will announce in June that it is expanding for the 2017–18 season. That means that we are about to see a flurry of trades league-wide as teams try to prepare for the expansion draft and protect themselves from losing valuable assets for nothing.

2.) The NHL will also announce in June it is going to expand to Las Vegas but it will not expand to any other city...yet.

3.) When Seattle gets its act together regarding a new arena in that city, they will get the NHL's 32nd team. I think they're probably two years away on that front.

It's going to be feast or famine for Seattle. The Seattle arena is really contingent on the market getting an NBA team, and in that scenario, the NHL would piggy-back off of it. I don't believe that solely an NHL team would be enough to get the financing in place for a Seattle arena, so they need NBA expansion or relocation for that market to work.

Quote:4.) The Las Vegas expansion team will be extremely successful. This is nothing like the Arizona situation – which is mostly an issue of arena location. This arena is right on the Vegas strip and it will be extremely popular for home and visiting fans.

That Las Vegas team is going to have a hell of a home ice advantage, I can tell you that much.

I'm a bit skeptical. To me, Vegas is a perfect long-term NBA market but would be a subpar NHL market in the long run once the novelty of simply having a pro sports team there wears off. The NHL doesn't have the inherent social scene that NBA games have, especially in markets with a high celebrity/high net worth quotient. (Just look at the celebs and high net worth spenders that still show up for horrible Lakers and Knicks teams - that's a perfect fit for Vegas. It's a casino comp goldmine.) The NHL also doesn't have the tourist draw of the NFL or even power conference college football. I think you'll see the teams with large fan bases and a high number of transplants living in the Vegas market (e.g. Chicago Blackhawks) draw well like they do in most Sun Belt markets, but people shouldn't reasonably expect more than that.

Now, I'm also someone that thinks that just because Sun Belt markets aren't as big of NHL markets as Northern markets doesn't mean that the NHL can avoid them long-term. As poorly run as the Coyotes have been, the league can't ignore a market the size of Phoenix for the long-term. I'd say the same about the past failures in Atlanta and the current problems in South Florida - ultimately, the NHL needs to find ways to work in those markets to grow as a league. Houston is also a glaring hole with its size and rapid growth. As long as expectations are reasonable for those types of markets (e.g. don't expect Original Six-level fandom), then they can work.

Also, I realize that Las Vegas has a brand new state-of-the-art stadium in place, so the biggest impediment for the league expanding there is completely off the table. As a result, I have no doubt that the NHL will expand there very soon (and I think the NFL and NBA will follow).

Quote:5.) Quebec City will eventually get a team but it won't be for a few years and it will be through relocation, not expansion. My bet is that it will either be Florida or Carolina but it won't happen until the Canadian dollar recovers and each of the existing markets has been fully exhausted.

Seems plausible. My guess is that Carolina is more at risk even though the Panthers probably have a worse financial situation. Pro sports leagues have shown to do *everything* they can to salvage the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale market. Even if there are zero fans in the stands or makes little to no economic sense for a franchise itself, that particular market is looked at as the gateway point for the broader Latin American market if only for TV purposes. That's why MLB has bent over backwards to find every way to make the Marlins work and MLS keeps giving the David Beckham-led Miami investor group years and years of opportunity to figure out a stadium plan even though other markets are standing by ready to put shovels in the ground immediately.

Quote:6.) Depending on who moves, that could spark further realignment.

True. As a fan of the Blackhawks that was a bit irked when the Red Wings pushed so heavily to get moved to the East, it would make geographic sense to move Chicago over if 2 western teams get added and get all of the Original Six teams back together. On the other hand, the NHL already is way too top heavy with basically all of their largest brands outside of the Blackhawks in the East, so that might spur the NHL to move someone like the Predators over, instead. (In just a quick look at the NBC NHL schedules over the past 2 years, there has been no national coast-to-coast OTA game that has featured a Western Conference team besides the Blackhawks unless they were playing the Blackhawks or another Original Six team.)

Quote:7.) The Oakland Raiders are moving to Las Vegas and that will happen sooner rather than later and the announcement of the move is going to come quicker than some seem to realize.

8.) The NFL will be fabulously successful in Las Vegas. Visiting fans will regularly flow into the city to take advantage of all of the things that it has the offer. Raiders fans from California will also make it over, and tourists from elsewhere will attend those games as well - and that's before even mention the people that already live and/or work in Las Vegas.

Honestly, this is the best possible outcome, IMO.

I agree with this here. When I heard that the Raiders were contemplating moving to Las Vegas and it appeared that the financing for a new stadium could realistically be put into place, it seems like a no-brainer unless the Chargers don't end up moving to LA. The NFL would work great in Vegas in general, and if there is one franchise that could be an easy "plug and play" team for that market, it would be the Raiders. The only easier assimilating move would be if the Lakers were to move to Las Vegas, too (which obviously won't be happening).

Quote:9.) The Chargers are going to build a brand new stadium in San Diego.

10.) Ten years from now, the Los Angeles Rams will still be the only team in the nation's second-largest media market.

I'll have to disagree there. A new stadium is San Diego is just as dead as a new stadium in Oakland. The political pushback against public financing for stadiums is at a completely different level in California - people in other markets might complain about public financing, but they have caved virtually every time in the past 20 years (ever since the Browns left Cleveland). That isn't the case in the California markets - they actually *will* let their teams walk. There is absolutely no reason for the Chargers to stay in San Diego if they can move 90 miles north to LA and add at least $1 billion (if not more) to their franchise value simply by location, especially when the LA stadium is going to be in place in a way that isn't reasonably foreseeable in San Diego. The LA stadium is getting built because it's one of the few markets where a larger dose of private financing can be demanded - that's just not going to be acceptable for NFL owners in a market like San Diego. (I'm not saying that it's the right thing to do, but it's just the reality since there are still a lot more markets that want NFL and other pro sports teams than don't want them, so it's always a buyer's market for pro franchises in picking media markets unless you're dealing with a truly special market like LA.)
(06-14-2016 09:06 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-14-2016 08:44 AM)goofus Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-14-2016 08:22 AM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]Las Vegas, Seattle, and Quebec City have been the most popular cities for expansion or relocation. I remember seeing a story on Toronto considering a second team.

I don't think they should expand unless the talent pool is there. Adding teams just add teams is pointless without the players. If teams stink, no one will care.

I have never understood the talent pool argument. The number of teams the market can handle determines the level of talent in the league, not the other way around.

The population as a whole keeps growing, so if they never expanded, the level of talent would be relatively higher compared to years ago.

Baseball got kind of sloppy for a while with inadequate pitching when they expanding too quickly in the late 60s/70s. The quality of play in basketball went down for a while in that same era with the ABA forming and the NBA expanding rapidly. So the product isn't as good and serious fans notice.

I don't buy it. It's not like they brought in random people off the street to fill those spots. The adult population in the 60's and 70's grew rapidly from the baby boom that started in 1946, plus MLB added black players in the 50's that arguably added even more talent. You could argue that expansion in the 60's and 70's got Talent back in sync with previous eras.

But ultimately who cares. People argue today there are not 32 QB'S worthy of starting in the NFL. That's nonsense. There are 32 QB's worthy of starting in the NFL because there are 32 teams in the NFL. Plain and simple.
Why are you taking about a western conference team moving over? The problem is there are 2 more eastern conference teams plus Quebec wants a team too. Chicago is not moving east nor is any other western conference team
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f665e04a3...-expansion

Quote:A person with direct knowledge of the NHL's decision says the league has settled on Las Vegas as its choice for expansion, provided organizers can come up with a $500 million fee.

The person spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity because details have not been released by the league ahead of its Board of Governors meeting on June 22. Quebec City was also considered for expansion.
(06-14-2016 08:44 AM)goofus Wrote: [ -> ]I have never understood the talent pool argument. The number of teams the market can handle determines the level of talent in the league, not the other way around.

The population as a whole keeps growing, so if they never expanded, the level of talent would be relatively higher compared to years ago.

Look no further than the NFL, how many competent starting QB's are there? The answer is not 32.

EDIT: I'll read the full thread next time, you already adressed this. 03-lmfao

And at any given time, there will only be so many star players in any league. The fewer teams there are, the more concentrated the talent is and even the poorly run teams benefit because players will become free agents or get traded and join them. Look at the current state of the NBA, players can play the game of basketball but how many excel and how many give their all?

(06-14-2016 09:06 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]Baseball got kind of sloppy for a while with inadequate pitching when they expanding too quickly in the late 60s/70s. The quality of play in basketball went down for a while in that same era with the ABA forming and the NBA expanding rapidly. So the product isn't as good and serious fans notice.

Yep, also true.
$500M for a hockey team??? Sorry, but hockey either already is or it will be the #5 pro sport, once MLS really gets going (might take some time).


C2,

For football, talent doesn't matter so long as the teams are even. You can argue that a QB alone creates enough of a disparity, when everything else is even.

If the Pro-Bowl was played mid-season, and gave some type of advantage to the conference of the winner ... I still say it wouldn't get greater ratings than a regular season game. People care about the team more than anything, in football.
(06-14-2016 12:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]$500M for a hockey team??? Sorry, but hockey either already is or it will be the #5 pro sport, once MLS really gets going (might take some time).

Sports franchise values are in another universe because (a) there is a scarcity of teams that are available at any given time and (b) the people that are competing to buy those teams happen to be billionaires where the status and ego trip from owning a pro sports team is more important than the cost of the team itself. Just look at the list of NFL owners - these are people that have been insanely successful building huge blue chip companies, yet their *fame* comes from owning an NFL franchise. Would the average person have any idea who Robert Kraft or Jerry Jones was if they were "merely" fabulously successful business people but didn't own NFL teams? Buying a sports team is the closest thing that you can get to buying *fame*, which is totally intoxicating to people that already own every material thing that they could possibly buy.

Remember that the freaking *Clippers* (not the Lakers) sold for $2 billion. We're basically at the point where buying any MLB or NBA franchise for "only" $1 billion is a "bargain" and you can expect the entry level for even the worst NFL franchise to be around $2 billion. As a result, a $500 million expansion fee for an NHL franchise isn't completely outlandish.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Reference URL's