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

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

This is a very accurate post. Agree with the comparison to Victoria.

You're right in terms of being relatively close to these centres, the problem is their airport doesn't have a lot of direct flights to anywhere aside from Montreal, Toronto and Paris.

If there was more employment there I would move there without hesitation.

That's exactly it. If I were offered a decent job in Quebec city I would move there without hesitation. Actually I would move to most NHL cities in Canada, even Edmonton because it's close to home.

On the flip side, outside of a small of handful of American cities, the vast majority or the US is criminally over rated. Unless of course, your thing is outlet malls and cheap fast food.

[PeteMoss]

If the place is an attractive destination to free agents is really not a concern to the NHL for expansion. Edmonton, Columbus, Detroit and Winnipeg can land the odd free agent... I'm sure Quebec could do that same.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Worth noting from the NHL's press release on this is the absurd level of snark:



That, I would say, is a direct shot at Seattle's city council. IMO, the league basically said it was prepared to give Seattle a team, but the city is blowing it.

Came off super petty to me.

Bettman is acting like he's the NFL commissioner. Sorry Gary, no one is tripping over themselves to get an NHL franchise.

[FlamesAddiction]

Kind of related to this, there was a poll taken by NHL agents a while ago about the most common teams that players don't want to play for, and the bottom 7 were:

Edmonton (worst)
Winnipeg
Buffalo
Toronto
Ottawa
Phoenix
Florida

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/02/18...n-these-cities

There was a player poll for the most desirable cities, and from what I recall Raleigh was near the top, which was unexpected. I think Boston was #1, but I can't find the poll anywhere now (I think it was TheScore.ca that did it).

Anyway, I would bet that QC would at least be more desirable than those bottom 3. And obviously competitiveness plays a big role You would think that if urban atmosphere was a huge draw, that Miami would be near the top of desirable places to play. Meanwhile, cities like Detroit, Pittsburgh and St. Louis would probably be near the bottom. Denver isn't exactly known for being fun either, although the region is "nice".

[wingmaker]

Seems like a lot of Western Canadian bias in this thread. Quebec City is a fantastic city and the people I know who live there absolutely love living there, including a couple of friends who moved there from Western Canada. It is much more than just a tourist destination.

I would live in Quebec City over probably half the cities in the NHL: St. Paul, St. Louis, Nashville, Dallas, Detroit, Philly, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Phoenix, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Toronto, Columbus, Ottawa, Buffalo, New Jersey, Tampa, Washington, Sunrise...

In fact, if not for Calgary's proximity to the mountains, I would pick Quebec City over Calgary as a place to live more times than not. Might not be a major urban centre but it has a lot going for it. I think it is a far nicer and far more exciting city than Victoria.

[troutman]

I respect any player that would go to QUE and stick it to the Habs as much as possible.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

I would live in Quebec City over probably half the cities in the NHL.

Are you an NHL player? Are you a pending free agent? If not, it doesn't really matter if you would choose to live in Quebec City or not.

I don't think anyone here is saying anything negative about Quebec City or its residents. I'm sure it's a fine place to live. But it remains the case that it will remain an unattractive destination for NHL players with choice in the matter when (if?) it gets an expansion team. On-ice success may improve that. But it won't happen immediately.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Worth noting from the NHL's press release on this is the absurd level of snark:



That, I would say, is a direct shot at Seattle's city council. IMO, the league basically said it was prepared to give Seattle a team, but the city is blowing it.

Yeah they're blowing it. Their insistence on getting a NBA franchise first is going to mean they end up with nothing. Their only hope now is acquiring an existing franchise in either league and they've been striking out in that effort.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

I would live in Quebec City over probably half the cities in the NHL: St. Paul, St. Louis, Nashville, Dallas, Detroit, Philly, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Phoenix, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Toronto, Columbus, Ottawa, Buffalo, New Jersey, Tampa, Washington, Sunrise...

Quebec City has a lot going for it but you rattled off some pretty nice places to live on your list. The simple fact that English is not the primary language is what makes QC less desirable for a number of players.

[wingmaker]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Quebec City has a lot going for it but you rattled off some pretty nice places to live on your list. The simple fact that English is not the primary language is what makes QC less desirable for a number of players.

I am aware that some people would take Philly, Florida, Toronto, etc over Quebec City. But I wouldn't. And I may be in the minority but I don't think the consensus is as strongly against Quebec City as some in this thread claim. And the language barrier is overblown by people in the west.

I also find that people in Canada tend to put American cities on a pedestal. I have visited a lot of them and many aren't that special. Outside of California and the major centres like Chicago and New York, a lot of American cities are way overhyped by Canadians, in my opinion.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

Seems like a lot of Western Canadian bias in this thread. Quebec City is a fantastic city and the people I know who live there absolutely love living there, including a couple of friends who moved there from Western Canada. It is much more than just a tourist destination.

A lot of people have issues differentiating "great to visit" and "great to live". I like visiting Vancouver and the island but wouldn't want to live there. Quebec City is cold in the winter and they get more snow than pretty well any other NHL city. Factor that in and the fact that it's a French speaking city and there's simply a lot of players that are going to cross it off their list even if it's a nice place to visit. Lots of players in the day weren't thrilled about playing there and Lindros was simply the first to make a stand.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

I am aware that some people would take Philly, Florida, Toronto, etc over Quebec City. But I wouldn't. And I may be in the minority but I don't think the consensus is as strongly against Quebec City as some in this thread claim. And the language barrier is overblown by people in the west.

I also find that people in Canada tend to put American cities on a pedestal. I have visited a lot of them and many aren't that special. Outside of California and the major centres like Chicago and New York, a lot of American cities are way overhyped by Canadians, in my opinion.

Again, it's not that the cities are special, or that they're inherently superior to Quebec City or anything like that. The cities have no language barrier and have relatively favorable taxes compared to QC. That's it. Factor in the growing pains that an expansion team will go through before it's competitive, and it's pretty easy to see that non-francophones will not be lining up to play there. Sure, there will be occasional signings. It just simply won't be an attractive destination compared to an established, winning team. Or a city with a moderately competitive team with favorable taxation. Or, at first, a losing team where English is the main language.

I mean, you see it in Montreal already. Yes, they sign free agents like Tom Gilbert, or Brandon Prust, or Erik Cole. But they don't land the "big fish" - and they have a competitive team with the most storied history of any team in the league.

[wingmaker]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Again, it's not that the cities are special, or that they're inherently superior to Quebec City or anything like that. The cities have no language barrier and have relatively favorable taxes compared to QC. That's it. Factor in the growing pains that an expansion team will go through before it's competitive, and it's pretty easy to see that non-francophones will not be lining up to play there. Sure, there will be occasional signings. It just simply won't be an attractive destination compared to an established, winning team. Or a city with a moderately competitive team with favorable taxation. Or, at first, a losing team where English is the main language.

I mean, you see it in Montreal already. Yes, they sign free agents like Tom Gilbert, or Brandon Prust, or Erik Cole. But they don't land the "big fish" - and they have a competitive team with the most storied history of any team in the league.

I understand what you are saying and agree that for some people those factors would all be huge concerns. However, I don't think those factors are as monumental as you make them out to be. For some, yes. But not universally. Suter and Parise both went to Minnesota as free agents because they had connections there and loved the lifestyle. I could see exactly the same type of thing happen for Quebec City. It might not be every free agent's cup of tea, but it is a very attractive place to live that could absolutely be a great spot.

Obviously, if you are talking about it in its first couple of years as an expansion team, then yes I think they will struggle...just like any expansion team would. Who wants to go play for a team just starting in the league? My comments were more directed to Quebec City as an NHL city in general, not specifically as an expansion team.

[Finger Cookin]

No one has been saying that people with connections to QC would steer clear of it. QC could be a thrilling destination for Quebec born players. It's just not going to be high on the list for other players.

And even for expansion teams or struggling teams, QC has barriers that other teams don't.

[automaton 3]

I think the location argument is really overblown.

Many (most) players have off-season homes. They're on the road about half the year to boot. How much time do they actually spend in that city?

The city you play in is where you go to work, just like some posters on this board go to work in Fort McMurray or elsewhere.

Opportunity, a winning/stable hockey program and salary all slot in as higher priorities imo.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Watch them go a completely different direction with a name, say Nevada Big Horns, have it be the running joke around Las Vegas for a few seasons to end up changing it to Las Vegas Gamblers or something gambling related.

Personally, I hope it is gambling related so that they use slot machine sound effects on replays where action is taking place in the slot.

The Las Vegas Slappers!

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Are you an NHL player? Are you a pending free agent? If not, it doesn't really matter if you would choose to live in Quebec City or not.

I don't think anyone here is saying anything negative about Quebec City or its residents. I'm sure it's a fine place to live. But it remains the case that it will remain an unattractive destination for NHL players with choice in the matter when (if?) it gets an expansion team. On-ice success may improve that. But it won't happen immediately.

Are you an NHL player? Are you a pending free agent? If not, it doesn't really matter if you think it is an unattractive destination.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

Are you an NHL player? Are you a pending free agent? If not, it doesn't really matter if you think it is an unattractive destination.

You're right, it doesn't. Observation of players' past tendencies and comparison of the various cities makes it an unattractive destination. Which isn't to say that QC isn't a delightful city.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Yeah they're blowing it. Their insistence on getting a NBA franchise first is going to mean they end up with nothing. Their only hope now is acquiring an existing franchise in either league and they've been striking out in that effort.

Well, if we assume Quebec City was the intended landing spot of the Panthers when they eventually give up in Sunrise, then that can shift instead to expanding to Quebec, and relocating to Seattle when that time comes - iff Seattle builds a rink.

Certainly Seattle's failure puts the league in a bit of a bind wrt Quebec - Bettman has already said that there is no need to expand to two markets simultaneously, but everyone knows 32 is the end goal, not 31. So with both Seattle and GTA2 lacking serious interest, Quebec's odds increase dramatically.

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

I mean, you see it in Montreal already. Yes, they sign free agents like Tom Gilbert, or Brandon Prust, or Erik Cole. But they don't land the "big fish" - and they have a competitive team with the most storied history of any team in the league.

Disagree, when was the last time any NHL team grabbed a big fish? Parise and Suter??

Big fish are drafted, developed and traded these days and those left on the pile as UFAs are rarely that prized. When Edmonton is grabbing the big 'prize' on D (Sekera), you know that location is not much of an issue.