View Single Post
12-08-2012, 10:42 AM
Global Moderator
How's the thesis?
DaveG's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 37,043
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
In fairness to him, Phoenix and Carolina weren't WHA markets. They moved WHA markets to there, and in one case moved back to one.

I do think people aren't correct in associating relocation with expansion. They put teams in Phoenix and Florida, and they were not properly set up to accept them.
That's exactly my point, relocation and expansion are two entirely different beasts. One simply requires the league to be looking for a market where they can get as solid short term and long term gains as possible, with ownership that will prove to be stable. Finding the optimal locations for that is the challenge.

Relocation is all about an individual owner and the ability of the prior markets to handle difficulties with said teams.

That said it certainly isn't unreasonable to question just how (in)effectively the NHL marketed the sport to the new markets on not only the level of the individual team but at the grassroots level as well. Some have been successes, some have been flops of varying degrees, but the one thing I've noticed is that the NHL has seemed to tell these owners "alright, here's your team, good luck growing the game" instead of having the necessary resources in place to make that a much more attainable outcome.

Originally Posted by Seachd View Post
The small market teams are generally the ones happy with sitting out, because they're not losing as much money this way.
Glad you worded it like that, though it's interesting to see how some of the hardliners from last time (Nashville and Carolina) have seemingly moderated to an extent. Certainly helps that both markets were generating significant buzz before the lockout locally (strong playoff run last season by Nashville, record STH sales and retention by Carolina).

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote