HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Brooks: NHL & NHLPA to meet on realignment (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1346599)

GKJ 02-10-2013 09:02 AM

Brooks: NHL & NHLPA to meet on realignment
 
Larry Brooks writes on realignment today:

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...32Ke0UjDo3F0rO

Sounds like the biggest concern here is really the imbalance of 80s-style alignment.

KingsFan7824 02-10-2013 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GKJ (Post 59418633)
Larry Brooks writes on realignment today:

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...32Ke0UjDo3F0rO

Sounds like the biggest concern here is really the imbalance of 80s-style alignment.

And financially, I think the PA likes the increased premium teams in the west have to pay for the added travel. Sometimes players have a specific preference, but they'll more often than not go to the highest bidder. If you've got the Sharks and Rangers, or Bruins and Kings, offering the same money, where is the player going to go? They'll get a ton of money either way, but one has much better travel, and has as good a chance to win, as the other.

If the Sharks or Kings want someone that the Bruins or Rangers want, the west coast teams are pretty much forced to increase the salary.

If the league goes to the proposed alignment, some of that advantage of playing eastern and western teams against each other goes away, decreasing the player's leverage. If you keep the 6 divisions, where a small segment of the league, which is also the league's largest revenue generating segment, has every advantage over every other team, salaries will go up that much more.

Competitively, and financially, status quo is the way to go for the players. I'm guessing the PA would just rather switch Winnipeg and Detroit and be done with it.

MoreOrr 02-10-2013 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 (Post 59421429)
And financially, I think the PA likes the increased premium teams in the west have to pay for the added travel. Sometimes players have a specific preference, but they'll more often than not go to the highest bidder. If you've got the Sharks and Rangers, or Bruins and Kings, offering the same money, where is the player going to go? They'll get a ton of money either way, but one has much better travel, and has as good a chance to win, as the other.

If the Sharks or Kings want someone that the Bruins or Rangers want, the west coast teams are pretty much forced to increase the salary.

If the league goes to the proposed alignment, some of that advantage of playing eastern and western teams against each other goes away, decreasing the player's leverage. If you keep the 6 divisions, where a small segment of the league, which is also the league's largest revenue generating segment, has every advantage over every other team, salaries will go up that much more.

Competitively, and financially, status quo is the way to go for the players. I'm guessing the PA would just rather switch Winnipeg and Detroit and be done with it.

Also there's this, which I brought up yesterday... Until or unless the League eventually goes with a League-wide TV revenue sharing plan, it will not be to the West's advantage to have their Divisional/Conference games compartmentalized into stricter Time Zone groups. It may be inconvenient that CTZ and a couple ETZ teams have to play PTZ and MTZ teams, but having that realty means that more CTZ and ETZ fans tune into those games, and that is still where the population density is, especially the hockey-fan population base. If the far West restricts itself to Divisional rivals within those 2 Time Zones, the TV revenue for that Division/Conference is very likely to drop off. Sure, they would get more games against current Eastern Conference teams, but those games aren't and won't be viewed by anyone as rivalry matchups because simply they're not. Thus, people will still be less likely to tune into those games, not being Conference rivals, and not being time convenient for TV viewing purposes.

Shockmaster 02-10-2013 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreOrr (Post 59426011)
Also there's this, which I brought up yesterday... Until or unless the League eventually goes with a League-wide TV revenue sharing plan, it will not be to the West's advantage to have their Divisional/Conference games compartmentalized into stricter Time Zone groups. It may be inconvenient that CTZ and a couple ETZ teams have to play PTZ and MTZ teams, but having that realty means that more CTZ and ETZ fans tune into those games, and that is still where the population density is, especially the hockey-fan population base. If the far West restricts itself to Divisional rivals within those 2 Time Zones, the TV revenue for that Division/Conference is very likely to drop off. Sure, they would get more games against current Eastern Conference teams, but those games aren't and won't be viewed by anyone as rivalry matchups because simply they're not. Thus, people will still be less likely to tune into those games, not being Conference rivals, and not being time convenient for TV viewing purposes.

That's why I think that if the NHL stays with a six division format, it will be Columbus moving east and not Detroit. The Wings are a huge draw out west and I can't see why those teams would want to lose that.

MountainHawk 02-10-2013 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shockmaster (Post 59424345)
Splitting up Boston from Montreal and Pittsburgh from Philadelphia will be met with A LOT of resistance. For the east, I'd like to see this:

NE: Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
ATL: New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
SE: Carolina, Columbus, Florida, Tampa Bay, Washington

I know Columbus isn't in the southeast, but neither is Washington. I figure it's easier to put the Blue Jackets in the Southeast division than tinkering with the Northeast and Atlantic divisions.

As for the western conference:

CEN: Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Nashville, St. Louis
NW: Calgary, Colorado, Edmonton, Minnesota, Winnipeg
PAC: Anaheim, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose, Vancouver

This makes it easier on Dallas an Minnesota so that they don't have to travel two time zones to play any divisional foes.

I know BOS-MTL probably can't be split up. But neither can Philly-NYC, with is a multi sport rivalry of the highest level. My post is kind of a running shot at MoreOrr, who insists on not recognizing PHI/NJD/NYR/NYI is pretty much indivisible.

I personally think the NHL's proposed 4 conference was brilliant, and one of the best solutions I've seen. Like it or not, there are a ton of snowbirds in FL, so having the Canadian teams in with FLA and TBY would help increase revenues for those cities.

Shockmaster 02-10-2013 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainHawk (Post 59428719)
I know BOS-MTL probably can't be split up. But neither can Philly-NYC, with is a multi sport rivalry of the highest level. My post is kind of a running shot at MoreOrr, who insists on not recognizing PHI/NJD/NYR/NYI is pretty much indivisible.

That's true the NHL will never split up the NY teams from Philly, but if they had to chose between putting Columbus in the NE, moving Boston to the ATL, and moving Pittsburgh to the SE or just putting Columbus in the SE, I think they'd lean towards the latter.

MountainHawk 02-10-2013 01:00 PM

CLB in the SE isn't that bad.

Every team will hate being with the FL teams because they are so remote w/o Atlanta.

JetsFlyHigh 02-10-2013 01:11 PM

Since TB and Sunrise are reportedly good attendance, the option of including Toronto with the Florida team division can die. Just switch Winnipeg and Nashville/Columbus and let them be. Who cares if they get the lowest attendance per division.

If Phoenix moves.. well that's another thread.

Fugu 02-10-2013 01:15 PM

I moved this to its own thread since it's about actual talks and not what everyone's wish is about an alignment.

Let's try to keep this thread focused on the issues raised by the two parties (travel, playoff chances, money, etc.).


Link to last thread discussing some potential mixes: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1327545

MountainHawk 02-10-2013 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetsFlyHigh (Post 59429873)
Since TB and Sunrise are reportedly good attendance, the option of including Toronto with the Florida team division can die. Just switch Winnipeg and Nashville/Columbus and let them be. Who cares if they get the lowest attendance per division.

If Phoenix moves.. well that's another thread.

There are a number of other issues that should be addressed, plus being ready for inevitable expansion. Winnipeg can play in the SE until it is all figured out.

Shrimper 02-10-2013 01:25 PM

Realignment can't come soon enough in my opinion.

Kane One 02-10-2013 01:25 PM

If teams in the west who travel more want a realignment so bad, they should be the ones with the extra team in their divisions. Why should eastern teams have to pay for a western team that decided to start a franchise that doesn't have any team relatively close to them? Obviously if there's an expansion, this would be a moot point.

When Vancouver came into the league, their closest team were the Golden Seals.

As long as the Rangers are in a division with 7 teams, I'll be happy with the proposed realignment.

MountainHawk 02-10-2013 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker McDonald (Post 59430705)
If teams in the west who travel more want a realignment so bad, they should be the ones with the extra team in their divisions. Why should eastern teams have to pay for a western team that decided to start a franchise that doesn't have any team relatively close to them? Obviously if there's an expansion, this would be a moot point.

When Vancouver came into the league, their closest team were the Golden Seals.

As long as the Rangers are in a division with 7 teams, I'll be happy with the proposed realignment.

It will be like two or three seasons TOPS before there are 8 teams in all 4 division.

KingsFan7824 02-10-2013 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker McDonald (Post 59430705)
Why should eastern teams have to pay for a western team that decided to start a franchise that doesn't have any team relatively close to them?

Good question. Why are Detroit and Columbus made to pay for it?

Kane One 02-10-2013 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainHawk (Post 59430863)
It will be like two or three seasons TOPS before there are 8 teams in all 4 division.

That's if there's an expansion.

Pilky01 02-10-2013 01:30 PM

I loved the NHL's realignment plan. I really hope it, or something very similar, gets implemented.

Might they be able to work out some sort of 'wild card' for the playoffs, where a better team from an 8 team conf can cross over and take the place of a worse team in a 7 team conference?

Frankly, I think the playoff representation complaint is garbage, but the PA seems bent on making it a bargaining issue.

Divisional playoffs will be amazing!

Pilky01 02-10-2013 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainHawk (Post 59430863)
It will be like two or three seasons TOPS before there are 8 teams in all 4 division.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker McDonald (Post 59430919)
That's if there's an expansion.

As opposed to getting there through relocation?

MountainHawk 02-10-2013 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker McDonald (Post 59430919)
That's if there's an expansion.

Absolute lock that the NHL expands to Quebec and Markham within 2 years after the Phoenix situation is settled. Too much revenue to being thrown away if they don't.

tony d 02-10-2013 01:34 PM

Looking forward to seeing what they do here. I prefer a 4 division format were the top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs.

chasespace 02-10-2013 01:58 PM

I would honestly prefer if the NHL adopted a MLB/NFL style alignment where you had two conferences that each had an even balance of east, west, and central teams.

Would help spread out the travel costs league wide and allow for fans to see players they normally wouldn't see.

Tough Guy 02-10-2013 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 (Post 59421429)
Competitively, and financially, status quo is the way to go for the players. I'm guessing the PA would just rather switch Winnipeg and Detroit and be done with it.

To be honest, I don't follow your logic at all as far as finances are concerned. The only real issues for the players will be travel and the uneven divisions.

That said, I support the league making the proposed realignment with divisional playoffs. The current system is nonsense and the divisions serve absolutely no purpose. The current "divisions" are more or less completely irrelevant and might as well not exist.

Shockmaster 02-10-2013 02:13 PM

So if the divisional format of the 80's and early 90's was so great, why did the NHL change it? Even if certain teams relocated they still could have kept a four conference format, but chose not to.

Tough Guy 02-10-2013 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainHawk (Post 59431099)
Absolute lock that the NHL expands to Quebec and Markham within 2 years after the Phoenix situation is settled. Too much revenue to being thrown away if they don't.

There aren't 32 cities in North America that can support NHL hockey. That is a major problem. Heck, even 30 is a stretch.

We're also reaching the point of Canadian saturation as far as TV is concerned. The last thing the American networks want is even more Canadian teams. I think it's Quebec or Markham, not both. Quebec might be a lock, but 8 Canadian teams is probably the absolute maximum.

MountainHawk 02-10-2013 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G Dawg (Post 59433909)
There aren't 32 cities in North America that can support NHL hockey. That is a major problem. Heck, even 30 is a stretch.

We're also reaching the point of Canadian saturation as far as TV is concerned. The last thing the American networks want is even more Canadian teams. I think it's Quebec or Markham, not both. Quebec might be a lock, but 8 Canadian teams is probably the absolute maximum.

Meh. There are probably 22-24 that can support hockey profitability. But there are another 8-10 that can break even with the right revenue sharing, and that:

1) Increases revenues due to more teams
2) Increases revenues due to a better footprint
3) Makes the NHLPA and NHL happy due to 1 & 2

KingsFan7824 02-10-2013 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G Dawg (Post 59432745)
To be honest, I don't follow your logic at all as far as finances are concerned. The only real issues for the players will be travel and the uneven divisions.

If the Rangers offer $7 million per year to a player, and the Kings offer $7 million, why wouldn't the player go to NY? For the Kings to get that player, they'll have to make it worth the player's while, and offer say $8 million per year, or an extra year at $7 million, something more. If the Rangers don't match, then the player got more money. If the Rangers do match, the player gets the extra money, and gets to sleep in his own bed more often.

Look at the history of free agency in the NHL. How many big names have ended up in Vancouver, or San Jose, or Los Angeles? Anaheim got Fedorov, by offering quite a bit for him. The Ducks lucked out with having the younger brother of an all-time great defenseman. Colorado, even when they were great, didn't really bring any free agents in, they just kept their own. Havlat got a lot from Minnesota. Of course Parise and Suter had specific reasons to go to Minnesota.

The better the free agent, the more likely they are to end up in the northeast corridor. NY, Boston, Philly, Toronto, etc, are all money printing franchises. Nobody can really compete with them in terms of money if those franchises want a player. If these teams keep their big travel advantage with the current alignment, it allows players to keep significant financial leverage come contract time.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.