Contraction a necessary evil for survival of NHL says economist
View Single Post
12-01-2012, 06:28 AM
Join Date: Dec 2011
Originally Posted by
KC, Cleveland, and Portland are all markets that have suitable facilities but would be a roll of the dice as far whether or not they would be good hockey markets. So if you had a team in a truly dire situation it wouldn't be the worst idea to move it into one of those markets (after QC, GTA2, Hamilton, and Seattle) are squared away as opposed to contraction
But atlanta had suitable facilities and a much larger market and went south because ownership waked away from the team. A viable hockey market is a hell of a lot more than an arena and a large population base, you need good ownership or you get boots if not lets expand to Mexico city.
The idea that lets roll the dice and throw a team into another non traditional market and hope for the best is precisely what got us into this mess. I think right now there are two viable markets for relocation, Quebec and Toronto 2. Then probably Seattle if the dual use arena goes forward and I'd guess the odds of it establishing a viable maker at 3:1. I think every other place is a crapshoot.
And for the people who say that they deserve a team because they are passionate fans and love their team, the same argument could be made for places like halifax which probably has more diehard hockey fans than Phoenix, but they are not in any conversation for relocation because there just aren't enough people to support a team there.
I don't think contraction is likely but if Quebec and Toronto 2 get filled the good markets dry up and moving a struggling non traditional market team to another untested non traditional market is a lateral move at best.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by sandysan