NHL to formally start expansion process (only LV and QC submit applications)

[Coach]

Vegas and TO2 are probably the best case expansion scenarios for the NHL as they likely offer the most in fees, especially TO2.

I would think Seattle, Portland, Quebec etc... Will be used to move AZ and FLA next season.

[DoubleF]

Ugh, why expand when you can relocate the Yotes to Vegas and Panthers (was it them in danger?) to QC with minimal disruptions.

Expansion for Toronto2 and Seattle when infrastructure shown to be in place to support it.

My 2 cents, and with the rounding down and death of the penny, means my input is worthless.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Vegas and TO2 are probably the best case expansion scenarios for the NHL as they likely offer the most in fees, especially TO2.

I would think Seattle, Portland, Quebec etc... Will be used to move AZ and FLA next season.

Yeah, over the next 5-10 years I could see a fair bit of change.

Expansion to Vegas and the GTA.

Relocations:
Arizona --> Seattle
Florida --> Kansas City

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Ugh, why expand when you can relocate the Yotes to Vegas and Panthers (was it them in danger?) to QC with minimal disruptions.

Expansion for Toronto2 and Seattle when infrastructure shown to be in place to support it.

My 2 cents, and with the rounding down and death of the penny, means my input is worthless.

Money sooner rather than later.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Ugh, why expand when you can relocate the Yotes to Vegas and Panthers (was it them in danger?) to QC with minimal disruptions.

Expansion for Toronto2 and Seattle when infrastructure shown to be in place to support it.

My 2 cents, and with the rounding down and death of the penny, means my input is worthless.

Because you don't get $500M+ expansion fees when you move struggling teams

[saillias]

2 teams at once is a little much. I don't like the idea of our promising young players getting poached by some Mickey Mouse LV franchise in an expansion draft.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Because you don't get $500M+ expansion fees when you move struggling teams

Sure, but if you move them, ideally those struggling teams actually become profitable in their new cities. Wouldn't that be better than getting a one time expansion fee?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by codynw

If they get a team, would Seattle just play in the Thunderbirds' arena until they get a new one?

I doubt it, unless that becomes the only option for an Arizona relocation. The Thunderbirds arena is quite small and not very central to Seattle. They could go into the Key Arena in downtown Seattle, but it has a poor layout and small capacity for hockey.

They're more likely to do what they did with Minnesota and Columbus (and Atlanta) and grant a conditional franchise to begin play once their arena is completed, even if it means teams joining the league in different years.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by saillias

2 teams at once is a little much. I don't like the idea of our promising young players getting poached by some Mickey Mouse LV franchise in an expansion draft.

We wouldn't lose important young pieces.

In 1999, we lost Ed Ward to Atlanta.

In 2000, when Minnesota and Columbus joined we lost Filip Kuba, and Sergei Krivokrasov. It's easy enough to protect young, quality assets.

[DoubleF]

Fair enough. Money. I didn't think of that.

I think Yotes and Panthers should lose teams, Seattle, TO2, QC and Vegas should get them. End result pretty much same?

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by codynw

Sure, but if you move them, ideally those struggling teams actually become profitable in their new cities. Wouldn't that be better than getting a one time expansion fee?

Hmm.. a cheque for 1/30th of $500M now, or fingers crossed that the long term plan to relocate struggling cities pays off in 5 or 10 years.. What do you think a greedy owner is going to opt for?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by codynw

Sure, but if you move them, ideally those struggling teams actually become profitable in their new cities. Wouldn't that be better than getting a one time expansion fee?

If you're an NHL owner in a mid-revenue market, another team being profitable doesn't really benefit you. You don't get any of their money, and other teams having high revenue just drives up the salary cap (and floor), which means you have to spend more money on salaries.

On the other hand, if you get an equal cut of an expansion fee, that's free money in your pocket that you don't have to share with anyone.

[handgroen]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Because you don't get $500M+ expansion fees when you move struggling teams

part of me thinks that this is an effort to get QC to pony up the dough for expansion fees before the league is forced to look at them as a relocation candidate.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by guzzy

I disagree with the watering down comments. There are more people playing worldwide. There is more talent than there ever has been. 80's hockey was brutal to watch compared to the skill of today. Messier would skate over the blue line and score with a wrist shot from the top of the circle everytime. That goal doesn't happen anymore because the players are better.
Yes, systems, goalie equipment etc have caused a downturn of scoring but it isn't due to lack of talent.
With the recent rise of US hockey and the annual increase of Draft picks coming from US, the game is getting bigger and skill is better.

No doubt there are enough NHL-quality players to keep the talent level high. But are there enough fans with sustained interest in the game - regular season and playoffs?

And from a purely selfish point of view, more teams means decreased odds of the Flames winning a Cup.

[Finger Cookin]

The NHL should keep Quebec City in its back pocket for relocation.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

The Saskatchewan Smooth Riders!!!!

No, it would be the Saskatchewan Smoothriders.

Smooth Riders is a totally different name/team.

[Sylvanfan]

A system in which 16 of 32 teams are missing the playoffs is likely to result in coaches clamping down even more on defence.

Fact is that in today's game, the variation between the top end skater, and the bottom feeder skater is smaller than it's ever been. Physically the players are probably more equal than ever, and adding 50 more guys...they won't be that much different than the 100 guys who are currently holding down the bottom roster spots.

Cowperson always used to say...if you want more scoring...let 24 teams make the playoffs. In a 32 team league, that would be the biggest way to get some of the coaching influence out of the game.

[Burke Salad]

I wonder if George Parros will be a part of the hockey operations in Vegas? I remember him moving to Vegas in the hockey wives show.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

No, it would be the Saskatchewan Smoothriders.

Smooth Riders is a totally different name/team.

Your attachment to Shantz is disturbing.

[Moneyhands23]

Living in Victoria I'm really hoping Seattle or Portland can make a successful bid! I'd rather drive to Portland for a game then be forced to go to Vancouver...

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

The NHL should keep Quebec City in its back pocket for relocation.

I think that's the only way Quebec could get a team as they aren't a big enough market to be able to afford the expansion fees. I personally don't believe it's a big enough market for a team but they could probably do better than Phoenix.