HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Roster Thoughts and Offseason Speculation for the 2012-2013 Season II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-09-2012, 07:49 PM
  #901
Herby
Culture Changer
 
Herby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Utah View Post
On a side note, I would take $100,000 a year for the life and luxury these players have on the road. Sign me up for any CBA. I'd be grateful to be playing hockey professionally in the NHL. Not trying to be a jerk, just saying...
I hear this all the time, and it's kind of ridiculous. It would be like someone in a sweat shop saying they would work your 9-5 and the luxuries you have for $6 an hour.

The players have every right to try and get as much as they can, they still do bring in plenty of money.

They just have to step back, look at the numbers and realize they are grossly overpaid, and expecting more than 50% of revenues is ridiculous.

Herby is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 07:58 PM
  #902
Johnny Utah
Registered User
 
Johnny Utah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posts: 6,940
vCash: 500
Hockey is really not as much a star driven sport as basketball where people just show up to see Lebron or Kobe. Don't get me wrong, I know anywhere Pittsburgh plays fans go because of Crosby, but to think they can keep getting paid this much is ridiculous...

Are Suter and Parise really packing anyone into any of these buildings? No.

Johnny Utah is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 08:10 PM
  #903
Herby
Culture Changer
 
Herby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishhead View Post
I'm not sure it's the CBA that is the problem as much as owners and teams themselves. The cap has resulted in great parity, but the bottom line is that you still have to evaluate your roster before you go out and spend spend spend. You have middling teams without a strong developmental system that go out and overpay middle tier or older guys just to try to sneak in that 8th spot. Their lack of depth is exposed when an injury or two hits and the result is another season of losing money. Teams haven't figured out how to stay near the floor until their younger talent matures. When the window starts opening, then you spend. Too many teams try to catch lightning in a bottle and they pay for it.

I also don't believe that many owners are losing money. The team might, but the owners aren't. AEG certainly has been making money the last few years.
You bring up some good points. But those more fall on management and how to build a winning hockey team. But right now even the floor is way to high for many teams. Again, higher than the ceiling was only 5 years ago. That is not realistic, the players and their reps have to realize that.

Revenue sharing in the NHL is a bit trickier than in the NFL or NBA because of the lack of a monster national TV contract. A team like Philly or Toronto is hesitant to give up so much of their gate or local TV money to subsidize Florida or Phoenix.

Your argument about AEG owning Staples, while I understand where you are coming from, it's not really fair because they are run as two different entities. Sure in the big picture it's going to the same place, but in terms of accounting purposes they are different things. The NHL hockey club should not need concert or basketball revenue from their arena to stay out of the red.

And you can think otherwise, but most teams outside of the elite clubs I listed, have lost money post lockout, some to the point of declaring or being on the verge of declaring bankruptcy.

The conclusion is simple, the NHL can't be a successful and profitable league as it currently stands with 30 teams. The NHL should have 24 teams, Phoenix, Columbus and South Florida are axed right away. Then choose three from a group of Anaheim, Carolina, NJ, NYI, Nashville and Tampa.

If you want to blame the owners and Bettman for anything, blame them for the ridiculous rate of expansion in the 90's and 00's. Mostly so they could line their pockets with expansion fees. Since the NHL expanded in the early 90's to non-traditional markets like Miami and Anaheim there have been two different lockouts, one costing an entire season, and now we are on our way to a third one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Utah View Post
Hockey is really not as much a star driven sport as basketball where people just show up to see Lebron or Kobe. Don't get me wrong, I know anywhere Pittsburgh plays fans go because of Crosby, but to think they can keep getting paid this much is ridiculous...

Are Suter and Parise really packing anyone into any of these buildings? No.
You are right that hockey is more of a team game, you need contributions from 20 guys, where in basketball you need three stars and only minimal contributions from others (mostly on defense)

Minnesota has almost always drawn well, even with awful teams. Hockey is extremely popular at the high school and college levels and hockey is part of their culture more than any other market in the USA. But the last two years they fell out of the Top 10 for attendance, after being in it every year since they came into the league. The signings of Parise and Suter have people in the twin cities talking Wild hockey again, and spending money on tickets.

I think players like Suter, Weber, Quick and Parise are much better values both on the ice and at the box office than some of these guys 2,3,4 tiers below them like Jones, Stoll, Gaustad, Wideman, Souray, Penner and Hudler who signed their ridiculous contracts.

Former White Sox owner Bill Veeck said it best about paying players.

"It isn't the high price of stars that is expensive, it's the high price of mediocrity."


Last edited by Herby: 08-09-2012 at 08:19 PM.
Herby is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 08:17 PM
  #904
Kings4thecup
Registered User
 
Kings4thecup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
You bring up some good points. But those more fall on management and how to build a winning hockey team. But right now even the floor is way to high for many teams. Again, higher than the ceiling was only 5 years ago. That is not realistic, the players and their reps have to realize that.

Revenue sharing in the NHL is a bit trickier than in the NFL or NBA because of the lack of a monster national TV contract. A team like Philly or Toronto is hesitant to give up so much of their gate or local TV money to subsidize Florida or Phoenix.

Your argument about AEG owning Staples, while I understand where you are coming from, it's not really fair because they are run as two different entities. Sure in the big picture it's going to the same place, but in terms of accounting purposes they are different things. The NHL hockey club should not need concert or basketball revenue from their arena to stay out of the red.

And you can think otherwise, but most teams outside of the elite clubs I listed, have lost money post lockout, some to the point of declaring or being on the verge of declaring bankruptcy.

The conclusion is simple, the NHL can't be a successful and profitable league as it currently stands with 30 teams. The NHL should have 24 teams, Phoenix, Columbus and South Florida are axed right away. Then choose three from a group of Anaheim, Carolina, NJ, NYI, Nashville and Tampa.

If you want to blame the owners and Bettman for anything, blame them for the ridiculous rate of expansion in the 90's and 00's. Mostly so they could line their pockets with expansion fees. Since the NHL expanded in the early 90's to non-traditional markets like Miami and Anaheim there have been two different lockouts, one costing an entire season, and now we are on our way to a third one.
Herby, thanks for the insight. Though I may not agree with everything you post, you always base your discussions with facts and show you know your S***. Keep it up.

Kings4thecup is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 08:24 PM
  #905
Gentle Ben Kenobi
That's no moon......
 
Gentle Ben Kenobi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 20,603
vCash: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
You bring up some good points. But those more fall on management and how to build a winning hockey team. But right now even the floor is way to high for many teams. Again, higher than the ceiling was only 5 years ago. That is not realistic, the players and their reps have to realize that.
I think the PA will realize this and ask for 52 or 53%



Quote:
The conclusion is simple, the NHL can't be a successful and profitable league as it currently stands with 30 teams. The NHL should have 24 teams, Phoenix, Columbus and South Florida are axed right away. Then choose three from a group of Anaheim, Carolina, NJ, NYI, Nashville and Tampa
There is no way 6 owners are going to give up franchises.
The PA won't give up 120 jobs
The Canadian cities won't let franchises fold, they'll want them.

Gentle Ben Kenobi is online now  
Old
08-09-2012, 08:31 PM
  #906
Herby
Culture Changer
 
Herby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,103
vCash: 500
I know axing 6 teams is unrealistic, but I think 2 could be possible. Especially if the NHL agrees to expand rosters from 23 to 24.

The problem with relocating teams to Canada is NBC and the deal they just signed.

You think the NHL gets bad ratings and press in the US now. Could you imagine an Edmonton-Hamilton, Quebec City-Calgary or Saskatoon-Ottawa final.

The NHL is capped out in Canada with the exception of Quebec City and maybe a second team in GTA, and that is assuming the Leafs ever allowed it, which is unlikely. I think Seattle has a better chance at getting a team than any Canadian city other than Quebec City.

Herby is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 08:41 PM
  #907
Thrice
Coyote Killer
 
Thrice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
You bring up some good points. But those more fall on management and how to build a winning hockey team. But right now even the floor is way to high for many teams. Again, higher than the ceiling was only 5 years ago. That is not realistic, the players and their reps have to realize that.

Revenue sharing in the NHL is a bit trickier than in the NFL or NBA because of the lack of a monster national TV contract. A team like Philly or Toronto is hesitant to give up so much of their gate or local TV money to subsidize Florida or Phoenix.

Your argument about AEG owning Staples, while I understand where you are coming from, it's not really fair because they are run as two different entities. Sure in the big picture it's going to the same place, but in terms of accounting purposes they are different things. The NHL hockey club should not need concert or basketball revenue from their arena to stay out of the red.

And you can think otherwise, but most teams outside of the elite clubs I listed, have lost money post lockout, some to the point of declaring or being on the verge of declaring bankruptcy.

The conclusion is simple, the NHL can't be a successful and profitable league as it currently stands with 30 teams. The NHL should have 24 teams, Phoenix, Columbus and South Florida are axed right away. Then choose three from a group of Anaheim, Carolina, NJ, NYI, Nashville and Tampa.

If you want to blame the owners and Bettman for anything, blame them for the ridiculous rate of expansion in the 90's and 00's. Mostly so they could line their pockets with expansion fees. Since the NHL expanded in the early 90's to non-traditional markets like Miami and Anaheim there have been two different lockouts, one costing an entire season, and now we are on our way to a third one.




You are right that hockey is more of a team game, you need contributions from 20 guys, where in basketball you need three stars and only minimal contributions from others (mostly on defense)

Minnesota has almost always drawn well, even with awful teams. Hockey is extremely popular at the high school and college levels and hockey is part of their culture more than any other market in the USA. But the last two years they fell out of the Top 10 for attendance, after being in it every year since they came into the league. The signings of Parise and Suter have people in the twin cities talking Wild hockey again, and spending money on tickets.

I think players like Suter, Weber, Quick and Parise are much better values both on the ice and at the box office than some of these guys 2,3,4 tiers below them like Jones, Stoll, Gaustad, Wideman, Souray, Penner and Hudler who signed their ridiculous contracts.

Former White Sox owner Bill Veeck said it best about paying players.

"It isn't the high price of stars that is expensive, it's the high price of mediocrity."
So what you're saying is the system that was dictated by the owners 8 years ago didn't actually work?

Here's a crazy idea that's worked for the NFL for 50 years: revenue sharing.

Thrice is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 08:43 PM
  #908
The Black1963
Grit & Character
 
The Black1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orange County CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,293
vCash: 3733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
I hear this all the time, and it's kind of ridiculous. It would be like someone in a sweat shop saying they would work your 9-5 and the luxuries you have for $6 an hour.

The players have every right to try and get as much as they can, they still do bring in plenty of money.

They just have to step back, look at the numbers and realize they are grossly overpaid, and expecting more than 50% of revenues is ridiculous.
Players in general, just need to shut up and play hockey.

Players can't ever lose money, whereas owners can.

Players are guaranteed that they will make money whereas owners aren't.

The Black1963 is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 08:50 PM
  #909
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black1963 View Post
Players in general, just need to shut up and play hockey.

Players can't ever lose money, whereas owners can.

Players are guaranteed that they will make money whereas owners aren't.
Players' careers and the length of them are not necessarily guaranteed. The owners are the ones willingly paying the players what they deem to be fair market value. The split in revenues between the league and the players is uneven, but a lot depends on how they define and determine hockey related revenues (HRR) which appears to be an area of contention for both parties.

I think ultimately a 52-48 split will work with changes being made to the revenue sharing between large market and small market clubs.

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Old
08-09-2012, 08:55 PM
  #910
Herby
Culture Changer
 
Herby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrice View Post
So what you're saying is the system that was dictated by the owners 8 years ago didn't actually work?

Here's a crazy idea that's worked for the NFL for 50 years: revenue sharing.
It's a little bit trickier than that.

The NFL TV contract is so much bigger than the NHL's it's hard to even grasp.

The NHL is going to get $200 mill a year from NBC, $2 billion over 10 years. The NFL gets $4 billion, with a B each season from it's TV contracts. Now in fairness I know the NHL also has a deal with TSN and CBC. But it's not going to dent this one at all.

Revenue sharing in the NFL consists of all the teams sharing boatloads of money, billions of dollars in profit, as the NFL is an institution in the United States.

The NHL revenue sharing would be Philadelphia, Toronto and teams like that subsidizing teams like Florida, Phoenix and Columbus.

It's a different ballgame.

And no, the system didn't work. But the owners honored it and got slaughtered. Just because they dictated the terms, doesn't mean they should blindly keep the status quo. The CBA is up and they have every right to try and fix it by negotiating a new one. If the players don't want to be realistic, they are more than welcome to go play in Europe or they can do what Roenick, Chelios and Hull did and sit on their ***** and ***** about it.


Last edited by Herby: 08-09-2012 at 09:08 PM.
Herby is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 09:04 PM
  #911
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
You bring up some good points. But those more fall on management and how to build a winning hockey team. But right now even the floor is way to high for many teams. Again, higher than the ceiling was only 5 years ago. That is not realistic, the players and their reps have to realize that.


The conclusion is simple, the NHL can't be a successful and profitable league as it currently stands with 30 teams. The NHL should have 24 teams, Phoenix, Columbus and South Florida are axed right away. Then choose three from a group of Anaheim, Carolina, NJ, NYI, Nashville and Tampa.

If you want to blame the owners and Bettman for anything, blame them for the ridiculous rate of expansion in the 90's and 00's. Mostly so they could line their pockets with expansion fees. Since the NHL expanded in the early 90's to non-traditional markets like Miami and Anaheim there have been two different lockouts, one costing an entire season, and now we are on our way to a third one.
While I believe owners are a big part of the mess, I do think the CBA needs some big tweaks in revenue sharing. Like you stated, the floor is just ridiculous. The cap keeps going up because the successful teams are raking in the profits, which forces a smaller markets to spend money that they aren't making. It needs to be addressed, because while the talent difference between teams is closer, the gap between profitability is growing.

And although I think that owners making money overall while crying losses happens, what you say about dropping some teams is absolutely true. The teams you listed aren't making a profit for their owners at all. The health of the league would be fantastic with 24 teams, and probably would at 26 or even 28 with a relocation or two.

Both sides would be absolute fools to have a labor stoppage this season. While I dislike their announcers, between the NHL network and NBC Sports hockey on TV was as good this year as it has been since we had ESPN covering with multiple channels. Some hard decisions have to be made this time around.

Losing 2 teams would be acceptable IMO. I hate to say it, but the writing is on the wall in Phoenix. A new owner is just a stopgap, and there aren't enough diehards to fill the seats when the community is largely apathetic at best. Columbus is another mess, and is a definite option. If the rosters are expanded, there are really only 18-20 jobs lost, which is minor.

At some point the owners are going to have to realize that they over-expanded and the players are going to have to see a minor job loss would be worth it for the future. If revenue sharing is tweaked and the revenue paid to the two bottom teams is split up, everyone is in better shape.

Fishhead is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 09:21 PM
  #912
ninetynine*
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Behind you...
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,730
vCash: 500
How's this?:

CAPGEEK.COM USER GENERATED ROSTER
My Custom Lineup
FORWARDS
Simon Gagne ($3.500m) / Anze Kopitar ($6.800m) / Justin Williams ($3.650m)
Dustin Penner ($3.250m) / Mike Richards ($5.750m) / Dustin Brown ($3.175m)
Kyle Clifford ($0.870m) / Jeff Carter ($5.273m) / Jordan Nolan ($0.532m)
Dwight King ($0.750m) / Jarret Stoll ($3.250m) / Brad Richardson ($1.175m)
Trevor Lewis ($0.725m) / Kevin Westgarth ($0.725m) /
DEFENSEMEN
Drew Doughty ($7.000m) / Willie Mitchell ($3.500m)
Rob Scuderi ($3.400m) / Matt Greene ($2.950m)
Slava Voynov ($0.817m) / Alec Martinez ($0.738m)
Stu Bickel ($0.750m) /
GOALTENDERS
Jonathan Quick ($1.800m)
Jonathan Bernier ($1.250m)
------
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(these totals are compiled without the bonus cushion)
SALARY CAP: $70,200,000; CAP PAYROLL: $61,628,560; BONUSES: $130,000
CAP SPACE (23-man roster): $8,571,440

Colin Fraser traded for Stu Bickel.

ninetynine* is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 09:26 PM
  #913
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,403
vCash: 500
Why would the Kings want Stu Bickel? Why trade a player who is in the lineup every night in Colin Fraser to get a player to sit on the bench?

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Old
08-09-2012, 09:26 PM
  #914
ninetynine*
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Behind you...
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,730
vCash: 500
I hope Westgarth makes the team, I'm a converted Kings fan but I want someone around to fight the 15+ other guys in the league just like him. I love everything about hockey, but my favourite part is the fights, and there's always room for an enforcer.

ninetynine* is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 09:27 PM
  #915
ninetynine*
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Behind you...
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
Why would the Kings want Stu Bickel? Why trade a player who is in the lineup every night in Colin Fraser to get a player to sit on the bench?
Actually on second though Bickel's a better player than Fraser anyway so that wouldn't work...

ninetynine* is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 09:33 PM
  #916
The Black1963
Grit & Character
 
The Black1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orange County CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,293
vCash: 3733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
Players' careers and the length of them are not necessarily guaranteed. The owners are the ones willingly paying the players what they deem to be fair market value. The split in revenues between the league and the players is uneven, but a lot depends on how they define and determine hockey related revenues (HRR) which appears to be an area of contention for both parties.

I think ultimately a 52-48 split will work with changes being made to the revenue sharing between large market and small market clubs.
My point is, players in general are pretty much guaranteed to make money whether they are injured, have an off-year etc.

The Black1963 is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 09:35 PM
  #917
Herby
Culture Changer
 
Herby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,103
vCash: 500
The issue of revenue sharing is a tough one, and it pretty much comes down to how independent you feel the clubs are. Do you see the NHL as one big business, or 30 different ones?

Although it was an anti-trust case, SCOTUS ruled that the NFL was 32 different entities.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr

I personally have no problem with revenue sharing, if it's simply that. Revenue sharing. What I have a problem with, is teams like the Rangers, Flyers and Leafs expected to prop up and subsidize teams like the Panthers and Coyotes. That is not the way it is in the NFL, and it's not the way it should be in the NHL either. The long term success of the league should not be based on New York, Toronto, Chicago, Philadelphia, Montreal, Boston and Pittsburgh supporting unsustainable franchises in markets where hockey clearly is not making it.

The national TV money, while being lauded constantly by Bettman, is really peanuts. The Kings for example will get about enough from NBC to pay Dustin Penner and Jarret Stoll this season. Not exactly the 4.9 billion a year the 32 NFL teams will start dividing up with the next TV deal that starts next season.

Herby is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 09:38 PM
  #918
Herby
Culture Changer
 
Herby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,103
vCash: 500
I don't know how anyone who read the wonderful piece the NYT wrote about Boogard could still be behind fighting in hockey.

Don't get it, never have, never will. It's like arguing with Penn St. fans and alumni.

Herby is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 09:47 PM
  #919
ninetynine*
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Behind you...
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
I don't know how anyone who read the wonderful piece the NYT wrote about Boogard could still be behind fighting in hockey.

Don't get it, never have, never will. It's like arguing with Penn St. fans and alumni.
Nobody forces anyone to fight, it's just a part of the NHL. If Boogaard wanted to stop making millions of dollars as a pro athlete and join construction, he was entitled to. Something tells me that would make him more depressed.

Rypien loved talking about fighting, was a big MMA fan, and the only time I ever saw him happy were interviews between periods or after games he scored goals or fought someone much bigger than him and won.

Wade Belak's death was an accident according to his family. If you must know, look up auto-asphyxiation.

ninetynine* is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 10:02 PM
  #920
tsanuri
Registered User
 
tsanuri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Grants Pass OR
Country: United States
Posts: 2,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
The issue of revenue sharing is a tough one, and it pretty much comes down to how independent you feel the clubs are. Do you see the NHL as one big business, or 30 different ones?

Although it was an anti-trust case, SCOTUS ruled that the NFL was 32 different entities.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr

I personally have no problem with revenue sharing, if it's simply that. Revenue sharing. What I have a problem with, is teams like the Rangers, Flyers and Leafs expected to prop up and subsidize teams like the Panthers and Coyotes. That is not the way it is in the NFL, and it's not the way it should be in the NHL either. The long term success of the league should not be based on New York, Toronto, Chicago, Philadelphia, Montreal, Boston and Pittsburgh supporting unsustainable franchises in markets where hockey clearly is not making it.

The national TV money, while being lauded constantly by Bettman, is really peanuts. The Kings for example will get about enough from NBC to pay Dustin Penner and Jarret Stoll this season. Not exactly the 4.9 billion a year the 32 NFL teams will start dividing up with the next TV deal that starts next season.
Yes but if you go back to before the NFL had revenue sharing they were not in near as good of shape. Granted that was 51 years ago. But it is what started them down the road that they are on today as being the most profitable sport in America.

I am firmly in the camp that contraction is not the answer and if more profitable teams must support some for even 10 years it is worth it in the end. I really don't think there are any unsustainable franchises. Just ones that need time to actually grow their market in a stable environment. And one of the teams that you list in having to support teams has almost been moved more time than I can count. If it was not for some perfect timing Pittsburgh would not be there. And many even some of their own fans seem to think if they loose their big names they could be right back in the same boat.

tsanuri is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 10:11 PM
  #921
Herby
Culture Changer
 
Herby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,103
vCash: 500
Valid point about the NFL before the big money TV deals, but football has been an extremely popular sport for years. The NHL has no chance of ever approaching the NFL, or even the NBA or MLB in terms of popularity. It's just never going to happen. That is why it was foolish to expand and relocate to some of the markets they did.

Pittsburgh is a strong market, they nearly moved over arena and ownership issues. Phoenix, Columbus, Dallas, Florida, Carolina all have very new arenas and they don't draw well or have people watching on TV.

Phoenix has been in their market for 16 years, Columbus for 12, Florida for 18. I just don't see a turnaround coming to these markets, it was a poor decision at the time and it gets worse and worse with each season.

Herby is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 10:26 PM
  #922
tsanuri
Registered User
 
tsanuri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Grants Pass OR
Country: United States
Posts: 2,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
Valid point about the NFL before the big money TV deals, but football has been an extremely popular sport for years. The NHL has no chance of ever approaching the NFL, or even the NBA or MLB in terms of popularity. It's just never going to happen. That is why it was foolish to expand and relocate to some of the markets they did.

Pittsburgh is a strong market, they nearly moved over arena and ownership issues. Phoenix, Columbus, Dallas, Florida, Carolina all have very new arenas and they don't draw well or have people watching on TV.

Phoenix has been in their market for 16 years, Columbus for 12, Florida for 18. I just don't see a turnaround coming to these markets, it was a poor decision at the time and it gets worse and worse with each season.
I agree I don't think it will get as popular as the other major sports but then again I am sure when the NFL started to grow, which just so happens to correspond with the revenue sharing deal, MLB thought that there was no way they would every catch them. But even as the fourth most popular sport the NHL can still do very well for itself. I think outside of Canada there is not a single NHL franchise that has another major sport in town would that team be number 1. Heck we are going to be 3 or 4 behind the Lakers. Dodgers and maybe even USC football. And if a NFL teams moves in it will be above us.
The woes in Phoenix started when they moved out of the city and to Glendale. And to make matters worse then got involved with owner problems.

tsanuri is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 10:43 PM
  #923
KingLB
Registered User
 
KingLB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,198
vCash: 500
Contraction is crazy and counter productive to all parties involved...

I don't even understand why fans always bring it up. Yea, lets get rid of hundreds of jobs, burn sponsors trust by shrinking their reach, oh and what about that 150-200 million dollar invest the owner has? Yea, I'm sure they would just love walking away from that...

KingLB is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 10:59 PM
  #924
Herby
Culture Changer
 
Herby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingLB View Post
Contraction is crazy and counter productive to all parties involved...

I don't even understand why fans always bring it up. Yea, lets get rid of hundreds of jobs, burn sponsors trust by shrinking their reach, oh and what about that 150-200 million dollar invest the owner has? Yea, I'm sure they would just love walking away from that...
The NHL could make Phoenix go away pretty quickly, they already bought the team.

The BJ's are valued at $152 million. With operating losses at close to $14 million according to Forbes. If the NHL wanted to, they could probably take that team off John McConnell's hands pretty easily.

But it's never going to happen, that disastrous expansion in the late 90's/early 00's is sadly here to stay.

Herby is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 11:16 PM
  #925
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,403
vCash: 500
When was the last time a team in any of the four major sports contracted? It doesn't happen anymore. Especially when there are so many cities who would love to have an NHL team and are making plans to build arenas that could house professional teams.

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.