I think some ignore the ownership math of a tear down.
A horrible team risks nothing by lingering at the bottom. Eg Arizona.
A mediocre team has a huge financial risk blowing it up when the future is not clear.
The flames would be looking at something like 1.5B in revenues the next 3-5 years.
If they win a round or two that’s probably gravy. An upside run is possible even if it isn’t likely, and they (as every team) will convince themselves they have a plan.
If they blow it up there’s probably a 2-300M revenue hit. The owners may need to put in capital to keep the lights on. There is zero chance of an upside run. And in the end the best case scenario is you get back to where you started, but with maybe a payoff in years 5-10. Maybe.
And tanking is a one way door. Once you start you’re looking 5 years out no matter what. Playing your hand as a mediocre team keeps all options open. If the team crushes it, you cash in. If they crater, you can always blow it up tomorrow.
So, option A has a limited chance at a cup but may win a round or two in the next 5 years but will be profitable and we can evaluate year by year.
Option B has no chance of a cup or even playoffs in the next 5 years, will not be profitable and may lose money, and once you start down that path you kill other options.
Option B only makes sense once you convince yourself that A has disappeared. The canucks seem to be wrestling with this now. The jets have in the past. The flames are nowhere near it yet. In 2 years, who knows.
|