The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
I'm hoping that the best thing to come out of this lockout will be fewer teams. I know a lot of you disagree, but I think there is a reasonable limit to talent pool, not to mention the creation of rivalries (which, I believe, drives a lot of the interest in sport -- 30 teams makes it hard to remember the teams, let alone play a team often enough to build a rivalry).
Notwithstanding the loss of teams to their fans, I am hoping for a contracted league. I think the minimum, but realistic, contraction is a 24-team league, but a really compact 20-team league would be very interesting (yes, a full third of the league gone!).
OPTION A - 24 team league
(remaining teams would pick up 1 top-4 D-man and 2 top-9 forwards)
EASTERN CONFERENCE
NORTHEAST DIVISION - Boston, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa
ATLANTIC DIVISION - Philadelphia, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, New Jersey
SOUTHEAST DIVISION - Tampa Bay, Florida, Washington, Atlanta
WESTERN CONFERENCE
PACIFIC DIVISION - San Jose, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Dallas
CENTRAL DIVISION - Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Columbus
NORTHWEST DIVISION - Calgary, Edmonton, Colorado, Minnesota
OPTION B - 20 team league
(remaining teams would pick up 2 top-4 defenseman and 4 top-9 forwards)
EASTERN CONFERENCE
NORTHEAST DIVISION - Boston, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Detroit
ATLANTIC DIVISION - Philadelphia, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, New Jersey, Tampa Bay
WESTERN CONFERENCE
PACIFIC DIVISION - San Jose, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Dallas, Colorado
CENTRAL DIVISION - Calgary, Edmonton, St. Louis, Minnesota, Chicago
I'm hoping that the best thing to come out of this lockout will be fewer teams. I know a lot of you disagree, but I think there is a reasonable limit to talent pool, not to mention the creation of rivalries (which, I believe, drives a lot of the interest in sport -- 30 teams makes it hard to remember the teams, let alone play a team often enough to build a rivalry).
Notwithstanding the loss of teams to their fans, I am hoping for a contracted league. I think the minimum, but realistic, contraction is a 24-team league, but a really compact 20-team league would be very interesting (yes, a full third of the league gone!).
OPTION A - 24 team league
(remaining teams would pick up 1 top-4 D-man and 2 top-9 forwards)
EASTERN CONFERENCE
NORTHEAST DIVISION - Boston, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa
ATLANTIC DIVISION - Philadelphia, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, New Jersey
SOUTHEAST DIVISION - Tampa Bay, Florida, Washington, Atlanta
WESTERN CONFERENCE
PACIFIC DIVISION - San Jose, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Dallas
CENTRAL DIVISION - Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Columbus
NORTHWEST DIVISION - Calgary, Edmonton, Colorado, Minnesota
OPTION B - 20 team league
(remaining teams would pick up 2 top-4 defenseman and 4 top-9 forwards)
EASTERN CONFERENCE
NORTHEAST DIVISION - Boston, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Detroit
ATLANTIC DIVISION - Philadelphia, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, New Jersey, Tampa Bay
WESTERN CONFERENCE
PACIFIC DIVISION - San Jose, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Dallas, Colorado
CENTRAL DIVISION - Calgary, Edmonton, St. Louis, Minnesota, Chicago
I can agree that the larger number of teams cuts down on the rivalries. It would be fun if you saw some teams 8 times over the course of a season, division games would be so much more important.
I disagree that there is any major problem with the talent pool. Athletes now are much better trained and in much better condition. You have more players than ever coming from Europe and the US. If anything, it might be that there is too much talent and that is why games are so tight.
Maybe a better idea would be to have a European division. The big drawbacks to that though would be European teams would have to go on long road trips to north american rinks to keep the travel affordable, then the north american teams would have to make long road trips to play the european teams at their rinks (I'm talking 7 to 15 games straight).
Repeat after me no contraction will happen because it will cost the remaining owners all most a billion dollars to buy out the contracted teams and pay off the salaries of those players not able to play plus all other expenses. Reason # 2the players must agree and that will also not happen. End of story please put cntraction to bed never to rise again.
I'm hoping that the best thing to come out of this lockout will be fewer teams. I know a lot of you disagree, but I think there is a reasonable limit to talent pool, not to mention the creation of rivalries (which, I believe, drives a lot of the interest in sport -- 30 teams makes it hard to remember the teams, let alone play a team often enough to build a rivalry).
Notwithstanding the loss of teams to their fans, I am hoping for a contracted league. I think the minimum, but realistic, contraction is a 24-team league, but a really compact 20-team league would be very interesting (yes, a full third of the league gone!).
OPTION A - 24 team league
(remaining teams would pick up 1 top-4 D-man and 2 top-9 forwards)
EASTERN CONFERENCE
NORTHEAST DIVISION - Boston, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa
ATLANTIC DIVISION - Philadelphia, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, New Jersey
SOUTHEAST DIVISION - Tampa Bay, Florida, Washington, Atlanta
WESTERN CONFERENCE
PACIFIC DIVISION - San Jose, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Dallas
CENTRAL DIVISION - Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Columbus
NORTHWEST DIVISION - Calgary, Edmonton, Colorado, Minnesota
OPTION B - 20 team league
(remaining teams would pick up 2 top-4 defenseman and 4 top-9 forwards)
EASTERN CONFERENCE
NORTHEAST DIVISION - Boston, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Detroit
ATLANTIC DIVISION - Philadelphia, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, New Jersey, Tampa Bay
WESTERN CONFERENCE
PACIFIC DIVISION - San Jose, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Dallas, Colorado
CENTRAL DIVISION - Calgary, Edmonton, St. Louis, Minnesota, Chicago
Problem is that Calgary and Edmonton wouldn't be part of the new league.
Repeat after me no contraction will happen because it will cost the remaining owners all most a billion dollars to buy out the contracted teams and pay off the salaries of those players not able to play plus all other expenses. Reason # 2the players must agree and that will also not happen. End of story please put cntraction to bed never to rise again.
no need for buyouts (at least of bonafide NHLers) - there would be a dispersal draft. i disagree with some folks - i do think the talent is spread too thinly -- when teams have 20pt players skating in their top 6, there's a problem. leads to boring hockey. a 30-team nhl is bad.
Problem is that Calgary and Edmonton wouldn't be part of the new league.
we can agree to disagree - i think in a leaner nhl, the key is bonafide hockey markets - edm and cal can draw fans in a more cost effective league. i'm not sure the same can be said of the teams that i have cut (phoenix, pittsburgh, anaheim, carolina, nashville, buffalo); buffalo is on the bubble - they could survive.
I disagree that Chicago should be kept and Nashville should be cut and Buffalo too.
buffalo is on the bubble, but nashville isn't drawing well. if chicago actually builds a decent team, fans will show up - there is a base there and it's a huge market. no way chicago gets contracted.
I can agree that the larger number of teams cuts down on the rivalries. It would be fun if you saw some teams 8 times over the course of a season, division games would be so much more important.
I disagree that there is any major problem with the talent pool. Athletes now are much better trained and in much better condition. You have more players than ever coming from Europe and the US. If anything, it might be that there is too much talent and that is why games are so tight.
Maybe a better idea would be to have a European division. The big drawbacks to that though would be European teams would have to go on long road trips to north american rinks to keep the travel affordable, then the north american teams would have to make long road trips to play the european teams at their rinks (I'm talking 7 to 15 games straight).
too much talent? hardly. there are so many ahl-calibre players out there right now, it is scary. like much of pittsburgh's roster, ditto washington, ditto florida. the talent peaked a few years ago, now many european players are opting to play at home -- the talent is spread too thinly.
bottom line, contraction is a no go, that would mean bettman admitting publically that he screwed up, he'll never do that so fuggetaboudit, end of story,
as far as ahl calibre players, with more econimoc certainty or salary cap, luxury tax, or any other cost certainty type of subject that's been talked about endlessly, there wouldn't be the need for owners who actually stick to the budget to ice a lesser talented team, as all players would be making/asking for/getting less $$$, therefore the owners could ice a real team, yeah so there's a few prospects on teh team, so what, if it's what the owners/gm's want then so be it, it's been said over and over, the owners are billionaires whose main income comes from other businesses, if they really wanted better calibre players on their team they could open the purse strings and they could sign them, but in the present time they don't think it would attract more fans/sell more merchandise/etc. so they haven't,
one more thing, if the player's playing on an nhl team are really ahl quality, then they wouldn't be here in the first place, they'd be in the ahl/echl/chl or wherever else, example, could an ahl team REALLY SERIOUSLY beat the stacked lineup of the redwings i believe it was 5 - 1 last year?.... there has to be nhl quality players there or that never would have happened
edit: if you argue contraction then can't even put your own fav. team on the list, no matter how good/bad of a market it's in then you shouldn't be discussing contraction at all
we can agree to disagree - i think in a leaner nhl, the key is bonafide hockey markets - edm and cal can draw fans in a more cost effective league. i'm not sure the same can be said of the teams that i have cut (phoenix, pittsburgh, anaheim, carolina, nashville, buffalo); buffalo is on the bubble - they could survive.
Pittsburgh has had professional hockey for over 100 years. I think they can survive quite well thank you.
If you think the NHL needs fewer teams, sacrifice your own for the good of the league. If you can't do that, then don't expect others to stand by and allow their teams to be removed.
Quote:
no need for buyouts (at least of bonafide NHLers)
So you are just going to take teams away from owners that paid money for them? I'd love to see that.
It isn't going to happen. The NHL isn't prepared to pay off the owners of the teams they contract.
I like these decisions that the league will just decide to fold a team. And even pay for it! When the onwers bought their teams, did they come with some sort of money back guarantee?
So nice to see Ottawa make the cut of the final 20. I remember a short time ago when every contraction thread included Ottawa and Tampa Bay. Or Ottawa to Portland.
Im thinking if Ottawa can get where we are, any team in a city capable of supporting NHL hockey can earn their way here too. If they need short term subsidies until they get here, perhaps some revenue sharing would help.
edit: if you argue contraction then can't even put your own fav. team on the list, no matter how good/bad of a market it's in then you shouldn't be discussing contraction at all
i did put my team on the second list - washington (i happen to live in boston right now).
Repeat after me no contraction will happen because it will cost the remaining owners all most a billion dollars to buy out the contracted teams and pay off the salaries of those players not able to play plus all other expenses. Reason # 2the players must agree and that will also not happen. End of story please put cntraction to bed never to rise again.
Players rights are owned. Players rights get traded. Say they contract Florida (example only), Florida just trades every player/prospect without a no trade clause before they contract. It offers every player with a no trade clause a trade or a buyout. Job done. Players can't do much about it.
I'll send a Luongo and 9th rnder to Columbus of a 9th rnder, send Jokinen + Columbus 9th to Chicago for their 9th. The NHL won't stop it if they support the contraction.
===================================
Lets get smart. The owner of the Florida franchise might want some money back, with NHL permission due to the special circumstances (picks and prospects are useless to closing franchise). So they start selling players for the $4m in cash and a few draft picks.
Bouwmeister to Philly for $4m and 3 1st
Jokinen to NYR for $4m and 3 1sts
Luongo to Van for $4m and 3 1sts
etc
They then only sell the 1sts for $1m each, $400K for 2nds, $200K for 3rd etc
Make a tidy amount of cash he help cover closing the franchise. Relocation might be better but at least they would have a base number that they could bargain with.
Pittsburgh has had professional hockey for over 100 years. I think they can survive quite well thank you.
If you think the NHL needs fewer teams, sacrifice your own for the good of the league. If you can't do that, then don't expect others to stand by and allow their teams to be removed.
So you are just going to take teams away from owners that paid money for them? I'd love to see that.
It isn't going to happen. The NHL isn't prepared to pay off the owners of the teams they contract.
If Pittsburgh builds a new rink, and Fleury emerges as a top goaltender, 91 all over again
Lets get smart. The owner of the Florida franchise might want some money back, with NHL permission due to the special circumstances (picks and prospects are useless to closing franchise). So they start selling players for the $4m in cash and a few draft picks.
Bouwmeister to Philly for $4m and 3 1st
Jokinen to NYR for $4m and 3 1sts
Luongo to Van for $4m and 3 1sts
etc
They then only sell the 1sts for $1m each, $400K for 2nds, $200K for 3rd etc
Make a tidy amount of cash he help cover closing the franchise. Relocation might be better but at least they would have a base number that they could bargain with.
I guess then they would sell the draft picks afterwards right. After all, who is going to make them?
Forget the draft picks, its a great idea otherwise. The owner sells off all his players, gets what he can for his other assets in a bankrupcy sale and admits he made a mistake in investing his money this market. IF he thinks he cant make a go of it. Why should anyone else have the right to kick him out. No one is certainly going to pay him to leave. Its his business.
A lot restaurant owners try and start up in a new location and have to fold. Why should it be any different for Team owners?
we can agree to disagree - i think in a leaner nhl, the key is bonafide hockey markets - edm and cal can draw fans in a more cost effective league. i'm not sure the same can be said of the teams that i have cut (phoenix, pittsburgh, anaheim, carolina, nashville, buffalo); buffalo is on the bubble - they could survive.
LOL. If the CBA is good enough for the Flames and Oilers to be healthy then it's good enough for every single team in the league to be healthy.
