[Rumour] NHL and Seattle talking about expansion fees (~$225M)

[doublej_23]

I'm a little late to the thread but here is my 2 cents.

What they should be talking about is removing 2 teams from the East completely (Florida & Tampa Bay) and going down to 28 teams. No one would miss those teams, when we watch their games on TV the arenas are practically empty.

Then take some of the struggling franchises like Phoenix / Columbus and re locate them to places like Quebec City / Seattle / Kansas. By adding teams it will thin out the talent in the NHL and keep more teams in places that don't make any sense.

Adding teams thins out the talent in the league where as removing teams sets the bar a bit higher for what is considered NHL caliber players.

I am fully aware that this will never occur with Bettman at the controls of the NHL but I think it would be a better option for our game.

[Joborule]

I think you could satisfy getting teams in Quebec City and Toronto 2 by relocation, while expanding the league to two by adding Seattle and Kansas City, thus the option to reduce teams makes no sense.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by doublej_23

I'm a little late to the thread but here is my 2 cents.

What they should be talking about is removing 2 teams from the East completely (Florida & Tampa Bay) and going down to 28 teams. No one would miss those teams, when we watch their games on TV the arenas are practically empty.

Then take some of the struggling franchises like Phoenix / Columbus and re locate them to places like Quebec City / Seattle / Kansas. By adding teams it will thin out the talent in the NHL and keep more teams in places that don't make any sense.

Adding teams thins out the talent in the league where as removing teams sets the bar a bit higher for what is considered NHL caliber players.

I am fully aware that this will never occur with Bettman at the controls of the NHL but I think it would be a better option for our game.

No offense, but you're out to lunch. The NHL has no reason to shrink the number of teams in this league. Absolute worst case scenario is moving teams, not contracting.

Also, even though a couple thousand tickets are likely free or promotions, check out Tampa's attendance over the years. Top 5 in the league most years.

2011/12 - 18468
2012/13 - 19506
2013/14 - 18535

There's about 20 teams in the league that would love average attendance like that and you want them out of the league?

Yeesh.

[Sylvanfan]

I must be old....in my life the only NHL expansion team who drafted 1st overall was Tampa Bay in 93. They specifically moved San Jose to the 2nd pick in 92 because of Lindros. So there is plenty of precedent to not give the expansion team the top pick.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Yes, there's something drastically wrong here, and it's in Kansas.

We're on a forum that justs all over people for making mistakes, and no one jumped on this?

You mean, "it's in Missouri", I assume.

[doublej_23]

Originally Posted by flameswin

No offense, but you're out to lunch. The NHL has no reason to shrink the number of teams in this league. Absolute worst case scenario is moving teams, not contracting.

Also, even though a couple thousand tickets are likely free or promotions, check out Tampa's attendance over the years. Top 5 in the league most years.

2011/12 - 18468
2012/13 - 19506
2013/14 - 18535

There's about 20 teams in the league that would love average attendance like that and you want them out of the league?

Yeesh.

I 100% know the league would not reduce its teams, I personally just think adding 2 more teams isn't a great decision. The talent will be stretched thinner which could hurt the product that's put out before the fans. (not that it would matter in Canada). Also there are franchises that need to be moved that are not doing so well before we even think of expansion.

Apparently I was out to lunch on the Tampa Bay call! (Next time ill do my homework lol)

[Trolleydodger]

Originally Posted by doublej_23

I 100% know the league would not reduce its teams, I personally just think adding 2 more teams isn't a great decision. The talent will be stretched thinner which could hurt the product that's put out before the fans. (not that it would matter in Canada). Also there are franchises that need to be moved that are not doing so well before we even think of expansion.

Apparently I was out to lunch on the Tampa Bay call! (Next time ill do my homework lol)

This is where you ask if there are 20 teams that would love to have Tampa's ticket revenue from those figures.

[$ven27]

Move Phoenix to Kansas City, expand to Seattle and move Florida/Carolina to Quebec and Portland.

/ Dream scenario

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by doublej_23

I 100% know the league would not reduce its teams, I personally just think adding 2 more teams isn't a great decision. The talent will be stretched thinner which could hurt the product that's put out before the fans. (not that it would matter in Canada). Also there are franchises that need to be moved that are not doing so well before we even think of expansion.

The talent will be thinner compared to when, exactly?

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by doublej_23

I'm a little late to the thread but here is my 2 cents.

What they should be talking about is removing 2 teams from the East completely (Florida & Tampa Bay) and going down to 28 teams. No one would miss those teams, when we watch their games on TV the arenas are practically empty.

Then take some of the struggling franchises like Phoenix / Columbus and re locate them to places like Quebec City / Seattle / Kansas. By adding teams it will thin out the talent in the NHL and keep more teams in places that don't make any sense.

Adding teams thins out the talent in the league where as removing teams sets the bar a bit higher for what is considered NHL caliber players.

I am fully aware that this will never occur with Bettman at the controls of the NHL but I think it would be a better option for our game.

Florida just got new ownership and they have such a sweetheart arena deal it doesn't matter how much the Panthers lose money, they're still making tonnes of revenue overall. Not exactly fair that Florida gets a portion of the revenue sharing when they don't even try to make money from the hockey team, but they're not going anywhere.

[Stanathan]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Florida just got new ownership and they have such a sweetheart arena deal it doesn't matter how much the Panthers lose money, they're still making tonnes of revenue overall. Not exactly fair that Florida gets a portion of the revenue sharing when they don't even try to make money from the hockey team, but they're not going anywhere.

I think I understand what you're getting at but the way you presented it makes no sense. It definitely matters how much they lose and revenue is not as important as the bottom line, which the arena deal affects.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Florida just got new ownership and they have such a sweetheart arena deal it doesn't matter how much the Panthers lose money, they're still making tonnes of revenue overall. Not exactly fair that Florida gets a portion of the revenue sharing when they don't even try to make money from the hockey team, but they're not going anywhere.

I wouldn't say they aren't trying to make money, because I think they are. The team has just been garbage for so long they are going to have to be good for 2 or 3 seasons before people start coming back.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Florida just got new ownership and they have such a sweetheart arena deal it doesn't matter how much the Panthers lose money, they're still making tonnes of revenue overall. Not exactly fair that Florida gets a portion of the revenue sharing when they don't even try to make money from the hockey team, but they're not going anywhere.

I guess they have a good deal but it isn't as good as you think because the latest is they are losing $20M per year and are asking Broward County for more public funds. We'll see what happens but if a team goes to Quebec City, they're my choice.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/201...s-organization

[cral12]

Love the city of Seattle - great potential rival for the Flames. Really hoping all this hype comes to fruition.

A colleague of mine looked at some possible name choices for a Seattle NHL franchise a while back.

My top 3 weren't listed though. I hope they would select one of:
- Seattle Stealth,
- Seattle Tsunami or
- Seattle Steelheads (state fish of Washington)

[strombad]

Originally Posted by cral12

Love the city of Seattle - great potential rival for the Flames. Really hoping all this hype comes to fruition.

A colleague of mine looked at some possible name choices for a Seattle NHL franchise a while back.

My top 3 weren't listed though. I hope they would select one of:
- Seattle Stealth,
- Seattle Tsunami or
- Seattle Steelheads (state fish of Washington)

Ugh, Stealth and Tsunami are brutal. Screams minor league or lacrosse/XFL kind of cheese.

Steelheads isn't awful, but it's also already the name of an OHL team.

[cral12]

Personal preference I guess. The article linked has some more classic, conservative names if that tickles your fancy.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[atb]

Originally Posted by doublej_23

Adding teams thins out the talent in the league where as removing teams sets the bar a bit higher for what is considered NHL caliber players.

I used to think like this as well, that the talent would be spread out too thin with the addition of teams to the league. I now think that with the rule changes over the past 10 years, and overall evaluation of talent by teams has opened the door for a lot of skilled players that wouldn't have played in the league 10 years ago. The fact that we're even considering that a guy like Gaudreau could make the Flames is proof of this direction by the league. In 2003-2004 we would have laughed at the idea that a guy that small (the freaks of fitness like St. Louis aside) could make it into the big game. This has created a much larger talent pool than in the past, and I think has resulted in more skilled players per team than in the past. So adding two teams really shouldn't really dilute the talent pool the way it once did.

The only thing that irks me about expansion is the timing. For the first time in team history the Flames have a chance at getting the first overall pick, and McDavid no less, and it might go to an expansion team by default.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

We're on a forum that justs all over people for making mistakes, and no one jumped on this?

You mean, "it's in Missouri", I assume.

***Jumps

[$ven27]

The Seattle Starbuck

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by strombad

Ugh, Stealth and Tsunami are brutal. Screams minor league or lacrosse/XFL kind of cheese.

Steelheads isn't awful, but it's also already the name of an OHL team.

I agree with Stealth and Tsunami. Steelheads is also the name of the ECHL team in Boise, Idaho.

I like Totems, Pilots, Bombers and Marauders personally.

I would also like to see them go away from the typical Blue/Green colour scheme (not that I idslike it, I just want to see something even more uncomon) and do something more unique to the NHL, perhaps wear Huskies purple? Maybe throw in the yellow that the Huskies had as an accent colour as well? It would be the same as Minnesota Vikings colours as well. Which IMO are fantastic.