View Single Post
11-23-2012, 07:01 PM
Street Hawk
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
I think the point is, the NHL made their beds in those poor markets and instead of laying in them, they want the players to fix their mistakes.

Seems pretty ridiculous....NHL can go on about players' wages being their biggest expense, they are also their biggest bread winner.
The thing is, I don't know if there are really 30 markets that could viably support an NHL team if they had to move those struggling US markets.

You've got either Markham/Hamilton (and Hamilton could have an impact on Buffalo), plus Quebec City as sure fire places to support the NHL. In the US, it's maybe Seattle, but they want an NBA team first. But, I think it would work there. KC? I don't know who would be the local owner there? Not the Royals owner.

So, if there are 5 or 6 franchises that need to be relocated, are there really enough markets for them to move to?

If not, do they get folded? I'd personally rather see the NHL fold 2 teams to get to 28 teams (makes 4 divisons of 7 rather than expand by 2 to get to 4 divisions of 8 teams).

That's where the NHL is right now. They screwed up with the placement of these franchises, although they will never admit it. They thought short term and took the expansion money, not thinking long term and looking at what it has cost them with having to support these teams now that they are in the NHL.

If you look around really, NBA and MLB probably have too many teams as well.

NBA, if you aren't a big market like LA, Boston, NY, Chicago, Miami, Brooklyn, or a team with a young core like OKC, Indiana, what are your chances for success?

So, is it fair for the owners to ask the players to fix the problem? Maybe no, but I also don't believe that there are 30 cities that can financially support an NHL team in this day and age. It might only be 26 or 28 cities that can.

Street Hawk is offline