Why Paul Kelly thinks expansion would help end NHL lockout
View Single Post
10-30-2012, 02:07 PM
Join Date: Nov 2008
Originally Posted by
Expansion would water down the product,
Not appreciably. You could probably find enough talent stuck at the AHL level behind established veterans to field two teams that win 40% of their games at the NHL level almost immediately. I just don't see the dearth of talent in this league that some people claim to see.
and give us more teams that eventually need to be moved or contracted.
Because the NHL is constantly contracting teams.
There's always going to be a pro-contraction lobby, that lobby has an ironic tendency to yearn for the old days when was scoring at its peak -- and there there were 24 NHL teams and only Canada to provide the talent for them.
Talent dilution, if it even exists, isn't NEARLY the problem people are making it out to be. Gretzky and Orr don't put up the totals that make them legends if they don't have a diluted league to play against.
Personally, I think they should move (at least) two teams and contract (at least) two others.
As I say to everyone who puts this idea forward: Sure. We'll start with your team. Would you rather move it or contract it?
But, nobody wants to take anyone's job away from them, so I doubt contraction will ever be looked it.
Nor should it. Compared to the dimensions of the actual problem, contraction at this point is like punishing littering with the death penalty.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Dojji*