View Single Post
11-29-2012, 12:12 PM
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
Gump Hasek's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 10,167
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
You're ignoring his point. What he's saying is that what you call "welfare teams" and "contributing" teams isn't necessarily accurate over the long haul. Teams fluctuate in value and fiscal success over the years even in the same market. Teams that are struggling where they are today may not be so in another 5 years, while markets that appear primed for an NHL team may not prove so lucrative in 5 years either. We've had enough teams leave Canadian cities to know they're not necessarily a panacea.

I think he's probably half-right, and that's why there's more hesitation from the NHL to move a team from the fifth largest metropolitan area int he country than there is from the fans. I think the league engages in more long-term thinking on this issue, and is wary of just assuming anyplace cold is going to fix their problems.
First of all, those Canadian teams you mentioned that left Canada only did so during a period of time when they were not afforded the annual welfare payments extended to the financial basket cases of today. You forgot to include that.

Rather than suggest teams be moved to where it is cold, I'm actually conversely suggesting teams could be moved to areas more financially suited to support them over the long haul. Hope that helps.

Gump Hasek is offline