The Official: 2010 Offseason Thread

WEFFPIM · Post #261 » by **WEFFPIM** » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:33 pm

You kind of proved my point though. There might be enough people there in the area for a second team, but the Maple Leafs don't want one there. That's less money for them even if it means a new rival.

You are saying all of this from the perspective of a Southern Ontarian, I get that. But there are markets that don't have the NHL or haven't had the NHL in decades that want it, too. Southern Ontario has a team. Kansas City doesn't. Las Vegas doesn't. They should be higher on the list than Hamilton/suburban Toronto.

And really we probably wouldn't be talking about this is Jim Balsillie wasn't a giant tool.

Post #262 » by **timd1218** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:57 pm

Winnipeg is not getting a hockey team anytime soon. The arena there is garbage. You need to have a new state of the art arena if you expect to be getting a professional sports team.

If a team is going to move, it's moving to Kansas City.

Sorry to all you Canadians, but the NHL needs to be popular in the USA to succeed and the only way to do that is keep teams in the USA, not in Canada.

hsb · Post #263 » by **hsb** » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:44 am

timd1218 wrote:Sorry to all you Canadians, but the NHL needs to be popular in the USA to succeed and the only way to do that is keep teams in the USA, not in Canada.

That's a cute statement.

Putting a team in KC has a high probability of causing a circular situation, well, until the novelty of having a new team fades off. Are you hoping to match St. Louis-type success?

Moving Florida, Islanders and Phoenix to Hamilton, Winnipeg and Quebec City would be much better for the league both short- and long-term. While adding another team in Toronto would be the best move the NHL can do.

At a certain point, the league's office will come to a realization that at certain places, they are trying to hard.

WEFFPIM · Post #264 » by **WEFFPIM** » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:59 am

Up until recently, the Stars were among the best in the league in ticket sales since they moved to Dallas. The Lightning were in the Top 10 in attendance after their Stanley Cup win, which was the last Cup before the lockout. The San Jose Sharks have sold out their building for years. The Kings and Ducks continue to sell tickets. But because the Panthers, Coyotes and Thrashers have been bad for so long and people don't feel like watching garbage hockey, people scream that the NHL doesn't work in the Southern US. Maybe they just need a better product to watch. Interesting proposition. You saw it happen in Phoenix during the second half of last season...a winning product sells tickets. Crazy.

Interesting you bring the Islanders up when the Oilers are facing the same situation. Small, aging arena and a market unwilling to fork over the money to get a new one.

Moving a team or two to Canada would send the NHL back in a downward spiral in this country just when its popularity is back on the rise. So no, short-term it would be a horrendous mistake. If the NHL bolts from the US, even in the smallest, untraditional markets, it would start the downfall of the league once again.

hsb · Post #265 » by **hsb** » Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:32 am

The last half of the first paragraph confuses me. The situation is more obvious.

A winning product does sell tickets but lets look again at the Oilers and Islanders example.

Record Attendance
Oilers 27-47-8 16,839
Islanders 34-37-11 12,735

The numbers speak for themselves. The Islanders have the lowest expenses and revenue, they were one TV contract away from being Phoenix 2.0.

One Bettman era success is the continuing strong attendance records, but some places are not going to get better barring a miracle team (same goes with Memphis, New Orleans and to a lesser extent post-brawl Indiana in the NBA). That's not being practical.

I don't want this to be some long-term back and forth debate. But moving two or three teams to Canada would not send the NHL back in a downward spiral. What does that even mean? The league would be stronger. I say that because the teams mentioned in this discussion do not have the impact on the game in America as some posters assume. That is why it's so easy to pick them for such a topic.

Everything is a balance and this is an ideal time to relocate a team to a stronger hockey market.

What the league offices and ownership should consider is developing lower level hockey in American cities where potential is there. But that is another topic for another day.

Post #266 » by **Nolan** » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:14 pm

WEFFPIM wrote:Up until recently, the Stars were among the best in the league in ticket sales since they moved to Dallas. The Lightning were in the Top 10 in attendance after their Stanley Cup win, which was the last Cup before the lockout. The San Jose Sharks have sold out their building for years. The Kings and Ducks continue to sell tickets. But because the Panthers, Coyotes and Thrashers have been bad for so long and people don't feel like watching garbage hockey, people scream that the NHL doesn't work in the Southern US. Maybe they just need a better product to watch. Interesting proposition. You saw it happen in Phoenix during the second half of last season...a winning product sells tickets. Crazy.

Interesting you bring the Islanders up when the Oilers are facing the same situation. Small, aging arena and a market unwilling to fork over the money to get a new one.

Moving a team or two to Canada would send the NHL back in a downward spiral in this country just when its popularity is back on the rise. So no, short-term it would be a horrendous mistake. If the NHL bolts from the US, even in the smallest, untraditional markets, it would start the downfall of the league once again.

Oilers are in the process of starting construction on a new downtown arena.

Post #267 » by **timd1218** » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:45 pm

hsb wrote:
timd1218 wrote:Sorry to all you Canadians, but the NHL needs to be popular in the USA to succeed and the only way to do that is keep teams in the USA, not in Canada.

That's a cute statement.

Putting a team in KC has a high probability of causing a circular situation, well, until the novelty of having a new team fades off. Are you hoping to match St. Louis-type success?

Moving Florida, Islanders and Phoenix to Hamilton, Winnipeg and Quebec City would be much better for the league both short- and long-term. While adding another team in Toronto would be the best move the NHL can do.

At a certain point, the league's office will come to a realization that at certain places, they are trying to hard.

How's it a cute statement?

It's the truth. First off, a team will not be going to Winnipeg for the statements I already made. The team there would make no money.

Moving the Islander would be dumb. Too much history there to just get up and move them. Once they get a new building, they'll make money. Phoenix is starting to become popular down in Arizona.

Moving Florida is the only team I could see moving and I wouldn't be upset about it. But of all the cities in Canada you listed, none have a new state of the art arena waiting for a team to move into. Kansas City has that and would probably do very well for the first few years because of them being a new team. And if they do well, fan support will continue.

sh00n · Post #268 » by **sh00n** » Mon Aug 2, 2010 4:25 pm

So the Hawks let Niemi walk and sign Turco. The worst dismantling of a team in NHL history is complete, holy ****.

WEFFPIM · Post #269 » by **WEFFPIM** » Mon Aug 2, 2010 4:26 pm

sh00n wrote:So the Hawks let Niemi walk and sign Turco. The worst dismantling of a team in NHL history is complete, holy ****.

I have absolutely no problem with this.

hsb · Post #270 » by **hsb** » Mon Aug 2, 2010 5:21 pm

Niemi has no regard for rebounds and played horrible in the finals.

Turco might be an upgrade for a year. He's a major stop gap though.

sh00n · Post #271 » by **sh00n** » Mon Aug 2, 2010 5:23 pm

I don't mind them letting Niemi walk personally because he was a product of a great system in Chicago - but now they've depleted that system entirely and added a goalie who challenges Nabokov in career choke jobs. It just looks worse because of every single move they've made this summer.

WEFFPIM · Post #272 » by **WEFFPIM** » Mon Aug 2, 2010 6:33 pm

They signed Turco to a one-year deal with the best defense in the league still in front of him. They still have their best eight players on the roster, most of them signed long-term. Each player they got rid of was expendable, in my mind. You still have glue guys like Brouwer, Bolland and Kopecky to go with the fire power and defense. The trades they made gave them a bunch of young assets and draft picks. They still have Crawford (who was very good in his brief NHL stint two seasons ago, better than Niemi was) and Toivonen as backups to Turco, assuming they send Huet to the AHL or find someone to trade him to.

They won't win the Cup, but they'll make the playoffs. And in a year or two they'll be set again to make another run. Bowman's done a great job making up for Tallon's idiocy.

SportsWorld · Post #273 » by **SportsWorld** » Mon Aug 2, 2010 9:47 pm

Hey! We won a Stanley Cup! Man this would have sucked if we lost.

Post #274 » by **Nolan** » Tue Aug 3, 2010 2:18 am

Not really suprised the Blackhawks didn't resign Niemi, Turco is a decent replacemnet really. Its not like Niemi is a star goalie or anything, he was above average and good enough to handle the odd screwup by the Hawks defense. Turco should be able to fill in and give them what they need in net.

Post #275 » by **ajaX82** » Tue Aug 3, 2010 5:18 pm

Turco cant win in the Joe to save his life, so i couldnt be happier

hsb · Post #276 » by **hsb** » Wed Aug 4, 2010 4:23 am

End of an era - Modano to Detroit.

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/story/1369 ... -red-wings

Post #277 » by **Nolan** » Wed Aug 4, 2010 4:58 am

hsb wrote:End of an era - Modano to Detroit.

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/story/1369 ... -red-wings

He really should of just retired.

WEFFPIM · Post #278 » by **WEFFPIM** » Wed Aug 4, 2010 6:08 am

One more shot to get another ring. Why not? It's not like the WIngs will be relying on him like the Stars have been recently.

Post #279 » by **Nolan** » Wed Aug 4, 2010 4:47 pm

WEFFPIM wrote:One more shot to get another ring. Why not? It's not like the WIngs will be relying on him like the Stars have been recently.

Modano's the face of the Stars franchise it would of been nice to see him retire with them rather than sign with one of the teams rivals too chase another ring in the twilight of his career.

Post #280 » by **ajaX82** » Wed Aug 4, 2010 5:57 pm

Its nice to have Mike, though i have no idea where he fits in. Trying to figure out depth charts, without Modano we had about 14 forwards who could/should legitimately play; with him it becomes 15 (16 if you include Maltby, which i don't). So either some guys like Ritola go on waivers or we have an entire forward line sitting out every night. Or we become the first team to run 5 lines of forwards and 2 defensive pairings.

Again, i love Mike for what he has done for American hockey and he is/was a helluva player, we just dont really have the room. I would rather have not signed Bertuzzi again if this was going to be the case.

But hey in Illitch and Holland i trust