Future of Panthers in Miami

[bubbsy]

if you go back since 2001, there draft history has been downright abysmal/shameful.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/t...r00005763.html

during that period they have drafted in the first round as follows:
4, 3, 3, 7, 20, 10, 10, 14,3, 3, 23, 2, 1
avg = 7

based on that, they're basically in their second rebuild in 13 years, where the first rebuild really didn't get them anywhere.

taking the flames by comparison:
14, 10, 9, 24, 26, 26, 24, 25, 23, 13, 21, 6, 4
avg= 17

and then the oilers:
13, 15, 22, 14, 25, 6, 22, 10, 1, 1, 1, 7, 3,
avg = 10

just for kicks, the hawks that built up a cup team/powerhouse:
9, 21, 14, 3, 7, 3, 1, 11, 28, 24, 18, 18, 30, 20
avg = 14

the take away for me when comparing the hawks, is that sure they hit home runs with kane/toews, but actually missed in other years but hit the jackpot when drafting later on (keith in 2nd round, wisniewski 5th round, byfugelin 8th round, crawford 2nd round, seabrook at 14th overall, brower 7th round, bolland/bickel 2nd round, hjalmarsson 4th round, ).

they basically had at least one home run pick, if not 3, every year till 08.

really goes to show just how nutty the draft can be. The other curious thing i'd love to see if there's more data on, is that is it that the hawks happened to just be better at picking the right guys (even if the right choice happened to occur in late rounds) or how much of it has to do with other less quantifiable factors like: Development, coaching, etc. Or did they just happen to suck most when the best prospects were available, which the panthers missed out on by sucking too soon?

in any case, panthers have been terrible for a while, but i do think they have the young assets to turn this thing around soon.

[PeteMoss]

The Flames issue was the dollar.

But yes.. I agree Florida has been pitiful. More talking about Arizona and the like.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

if you go back since 2001, there draft history has been downright abysmal/shameful.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/t...r00005763.html

during that period they have drafted in the first round as follows:
4, 3, 3, 7, 20, 10, 10, 14,3, 3, 23, 2, 1
avg = 7

based on that, they're basically in their second rebuild in 13 years, where the first rebuild really didn't get them anywhere.

taking the flames by comparison:
14, 10, 9, 24, 26, 26, 24, 25, 23, 13, 21, 6, 4
avg= 17

and then the oilers:
13, 15, 22, 14, 25, 6, 22, 10, 1, 1, 1, 7, 3,
avg = 10

just for kicks, the hawks that built up a cup team/powerhouse:
9, 21, 14, 3, 7, 3, 1, 11, 28, 24, 18, 18, 30, 20
avg = 14

the take away for me when comparing the hawks, is that sure they hit home runs with kane/toews, but actually missed in other years but hit the jackpot when drafting later on (keith in 2nd round, wisniewski 5th round, byfugelin 8th round, crawford 2nd round, seabrook at 14th overall, brower 7th round, bolland/bickel 2nd round, hjalmarsson 4th round, ).

they basically had at least one home run pick, if not 3, every year till 08.

really goes to show just how nutty the draft can be. The other curious thing i'd love to see if there's more data on, is that is it that the hawks happened to just be better at picking the right guys (even if the right choice happened to occur in late rounds) or how much of it has to do with other less quantifiable factors like: Development, coaching, etc. Or did they just happen to suck most when the best prospects were available, which the panthers missed out on by sucking too soon?

in any case, panthers have been terrible for a while, but i do think they have the young assets to turn this thing around soon.

Hawks loaded up on picks and had a ton of 'shots' at succeeding. I think that is the key to their approach more than being better at drafting or developing.

[d_phaneuf]

`1

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Please quit comparing all other NHL teams to the Atlanta situation. The owners of the hockey, NBA team and arena in Atlanta wanted the Thrashers gone. The ownership situation was so screwed up that they were suing each other for control. Full stop. They purchased the teams and rink because of the NBA and arena only, and the NBA teams attendance sucks also but the TV money is paying for them.

Any idea why they might want the Thrashers gone?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

Owners of that team in florida wanted a Hockey team so they could get a building for events that would make them money.

They have a sweetheart deal on the arena and rake in the money. They lose on the hockey team, but make money overall.

I don't have the figures handy, but from what I've read, this is no longer true. Between the rising cap floor and the total lack of fan support, it appears that the Panthers are now losing money faster than the other events in the arena can make it.

That arena is turning into a 100-ton boat with a 200-ton anchor, and I'm not a bit surprised that there is starting to be talk of cutting the anchor loose.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I don't have the figures handy, but from what I've read, this is no longer true. Between the rising cap floor and the total lack of fan support, it appears that the Panthers are now losing money faster than the other events in the arena can make it.

That arena is turning into a 100-ton boat with a 200-ton anchor, and I'm not a bit surprised that there is starting to be talk of cutting the anchor loose.

Yeah, that's what I've read too. At one time they were golden but the hockey team is losing too much money now and that's why they went to the city for more money. They didn't get it and now are in trouble.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Any idea why they might want the Thrashers gone?

Atlanta's new owners wanted the arena and basketball team only. They were pretty much unwilling owners of the Thrashers. They didn't want the team gone, per se, as another tenant for their arena paying a lease would have been good, but in the end, nobody wanted to own a hockey team in Atlanta.

And that, frankly, is the sole difference between Atlanta and Florida (and Phoenix, for that matter). If someone is willing to own a team in Miami/Sunrise, the Panthers will stay. If nobody is, they will go.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I don't have the figures handy, but from what I've read, this is no longer true. Between the rising cap floor and the total lack of fan support, it appears that the Panthers are now losing money faster than the other events in the arena can make it.

That arena is turning into a 100-ton boat with a 200-ton anchor, and I'm not a bit surprised that there is starting to be talk of cutting the anchor loose.

If the arena is the biggest problem then I'm sure the Panthers and/or the league will find a way to make the American Airlines Arena in Miami work for hockey.

It may be centrally located in the population base, but realistically it's over an hour from Miami and West Palm Beach. Fort Lauderdale and surrounding cities are really the main draw and it's still located right next to the everglades, so not really as central as it could be.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Atlanta's new owners wanted the arena and basketball team only. They were pretty much unwilling owners of the Thrashers. They didn't want the team gone, per se, as another tenant for their arena paying a lease would have been good, but in the end, nobody wanted to own a hockey team in Atlanta.

And that, frankly, is the sole difference between Atlanta and Florida (and Phoenix, for that matter). If someone is willing to own a team in Miami/Sunrise, the Panthers will stay. If nobody is, they will go.

But what it really comes down to is money. If the team was making money (or at least not losing more than the increasing value of the team), finding an owner wouldn't have been an issue. Money is always the first domino. Florida might not be where Atlanta was yet, but the preliminary conditions are there.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

If the arena is the biggest problem then I'm sure the Panthers and/or the league will find a way to make the American Airlines Arena in Miami work for hockey.

No, the arena is not the problem. The problem is that the arena comes with a hockey team attached per long-term contract, and the hockey team is haemorrhaging money. Inflicting the haemorrhage on a different arena wouldn't help, and you'd have a mighty hard time finding an owner dumb enough to take that job on.

At some point, I expect the owners to get permission from the relevant authorities to cut bait and get rid of the Panthers, after which they will move to Las Quebattle City or somewhere. The situation is becoming an embarrassment.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Sounds like they were given an out with that $61 million escape clause (that's peanuts). I assume that number will drop year-by-year until the team moves.

[BigTuna]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

^In defence of Miami fans, the Marlins situation is about 4.8x more effed up than the Panthers. I certainly wouldn't support the carpetbagger Loria if he owned the Flames.





Approves

They've still won a couple of world series. They're not that bad off.

And Miami is awful. They're already offering discounts for the Heat.

[Jordan!]

Hey guys, ever think that having teams in these markets with huge population means something more to the league than butts in the seats? TV contracts say hello

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Hey guys, ever think that having teams in these markets with huge population means something more to the league than butts in the seats? TV contracts say hello

That was the theory. In practice, the TV ratings in those markets are as near zero as you can measure. And the poor national TV contracts that the NHL keeps getting reflect that fact.

In any case, no major-league sport in North America is in every large market. Hell, the NFL isn't even in Los Angeles, yet it seems to do OK. The NHL's national footprint would not suffer noticeably if it had only one team in Florida.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Hey guys, ever think that having teams in these markets with huge population means something more to the league than butts in the seats? TV contracts say hello

Thanks Captain Obvious!

Few problems for your theory though.

1. It isn't 1990 anymore. The NHL has moved on from that thinking. Atlanta says hello.
2. The league has its billion dollar contract, long term
3. We all know that South Florida and Phoenix drive pretty much zero eyeballs to hockey telecasts.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Hey guys, ever think that having teams in these markets with huge population means something more to the league than butts in the seats? TV contracts say hello

Florida and Phoenix can easily be replaced by any of Seattle, Portland or Vegas for as said those two places don't contribute any TV viewers. It's getting stupid trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.

[troutman]

Big market does not necessarily mean good hockey market:

http://mowatcentre.ca/wp-content/upl...of_the_nhl.pdf

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Hey guys, ever think that having teams in these markets with huge population means something more to the league than butts in the seats? TV contracts say hello

Piling on here, but having teams in US markets that brings buts to the seat, could also spur more telecast viewers since people in those new markets would be more interested in hockey than they were prior to the team arriving, and having adequate fan support..

[Street Pharmacist]

Great article somewhat related to the subject:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/h...nt-make-sense/

Teams in markets with fewer than 300,000 hockey fans, however, have tended to lose money, and that’s where the wisdom of adding franchises in Seattle and (especially) Las Vegas gets iffy. We estimated that Seattle contains about 240,000 NHL fans — fewer than that of Phoenix and Florida’s Tampa Bay, home to two franchises that have struggled to turn a profit for many years. And if Seattle is an enigmatic choice by this metric, Las Vegas would be a disaster. According to our estimates, there are only 91,000 hockey fans in the Vegas media market, which is nearly 40 percent fewer than even Nashville, Tennessee, the least-avid current NHL city, has.

And it isn’t as though the NHL was lacking for other options. Our research showed that, in addition to Quebec City and a second Toronto franchise, the Canadian cities of Kingston, Halifax and perhaps even Moncton, Sherbrooke or Sudbury could each reasonably hope to support a team. From the standpoint of fan avidity, all were more attractive markets than Seattle — not to mention Las Vegas, which was sandwiched between Milwaukee and Kansas City, Missouri, as the least hockey-mad of the potential expansion sites we examined. Each of those seven Canadian municipalities also contained more NHL fans than five current NHL cities: Phoenix; Columbus, Ohio; Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina; Miami and Nashville.

Here's an image from a previous article referred to in this one talking about number of fans: