Ongoing NHL thread - Part deux

[mattola]

"Ice Girls" are really a fucking stupid idea anyway

i cant stand em like I cant stand the cheerleaders in edmonton and carolina. just nonsense. we have ice cleaners dressed fairly normal with guys and girls. dont want it any other way

 

[Otis B. Driftwood]

He would fetch a king's ransom in return, but after shelling out all that money to keep him, I highly doubt the Preds would move him.

If they do though... Jim Nill should shove his way to the front of the line.

 

[dash]

i cant stand em like I cant stand the cheerleaders in edmonton and carolina.

I also say no to cheerleaders/ice girls, but if you're going to have them, at least do it up right like they have done it in Carolina and not the dog and pony show you have going on in Edmonton.

/emphasis on dog for Edmonton.

 

[forty_three]

http://toomanymenonthesite.com/2014/07/14/city-cleveland-deserve-hockey-team/

Seems like an awful lot of words when the only one needed is "no".

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

http://toomanymenonthesite.com/2014/07/14/city-cleveland-deserve-hockey-team/

Seems like an awful lot of words when the only one needed is "no".

Yeah never gonna happen, unless Cleveland suddenly becomes a resurgent, attractive market.

Pigs have flown, right?

 

[dash]

Bring back the Barons!!

/I keed
//Somebody is going to get a team in four years when the Coyotes leave Glendale.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Bring back the Barons!!

/I keed
//Somebody is going to get a team in four years when the Coyotes leave Glendale.

Would Seattle and LV be the only talked about cities that haven't had a team in the past?

 

[dash]

Would Seattle and LV be the only talked about cities that haven't had a team in the past?

Milwaukee has been mentioned previously, Wisconsin is a great hockey state and the Admirals have done well as a AHL franchise.

 

[forty_three]

Milwaukee has been mentioned previously, Wisconsin is a great hockey state and the Admirals have done well as a AHL franchise.

I agree. Seattle and Milwaukee would be my top two spots. Then Kansas City if either their mayor or Bettman dies first.

 

[forty_three]

Meanwhile, Buffalo gets 10k for a prospects scrimmage.

Good on ya, Buffalonians.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Milwaukee has been mentioned previously, Wisconsin is a great hockey state and the Admirals have done well as a AHL franchise.

I agree. Seattle and Milwaukee would be my top two spots. Then Kansas City if either their mayor or Bettman dies first.

I forgot Milwaukee. I agree that would be a good choice though.

 

[mattola]

Boss would be proud.

Meanwhile, Buffalo gets 10k for a prospects scrimmage.

Good on ya, Buffalonians.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Meanwhile, Buffalo gets 10k for a prospects scrimmage.

Good on ya, Buffalonians.

Not to take anything away from my fellow Sabres fans, but that guy's source is clearly wrong. The official attendance announced by the team was 8725. And even that was an estimate because they didn't sell tickets so it was just guys with clickers at the entrances.

Still a good number though.

 

[forty_three]

I forgot Milwaukee. I agree that would be a good choice though.

I personally feel like the NHL should be expanding into places where youth hockey is not at it's peak (Seattle, KC, Portland), but Milwaukee is a great choice because there is already a ton of love and they have two natural rivals in Minnesota and Chicago.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

So in theory, we're going to have 3 new locations in the next few years. Phoenix will relocate and we'll probably get 2 expansion teams. Of those 3 I think at least one should be a hockey hot bed (Milwaukee) to soften the drain that the experimental markets will cause. People in Wisconsin love hockey, they will pour money into that franchise. KC/Seattle, we're not quite sure what's in store for those but it can't hurt to hedge your bets a bit by going with a seemingly can't miss city.

 

[forty_three]

So in theory, we're going to have 3 new locations in the next few years. Phoenix will relocate and we'll probably get 2 expansion teams. Of those 3 I think at least one should be a hockey hot bed (Milwaukee) to soften the drain that the experimental markets will cause. People in Wisconsin love hockey, they will pour money into that franchise. KC/Seattle, we're not quite sure what's in store for those but it can't hurt to hedge your bets a bit by going with a seemingly can't miss city.

As long as they balance the conferences when they do it.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

I personally feel like the NHL should be expanding into places where youth hockey is not at it's peak (Seattle, KC, Portland), but Milwaukee is a great choice because there is already a ton of love and they have two natural rivals in Minnesota and Chicago.

Future NHL cities, ranked for viability:

1. Quebec City
2. Milwaukee
3. Seattle
4. Golden Horseshoe
5. Kansas City
6. Portland
7. Houston
8. Hartford
9. Las Vegas

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Future NHL cities, ranked for viability:

1. Quebec City
2. Milwaukee
3. Seattle
4. Golden Horseshoe
5. Kansas City
6. Portland
7. Houston
8. Hartford
9. Las Vegas

That would actually be #1 on my list. Maybe as a co-#1 with a 2nd team actually in Toronto. Obviously putting a second team right in Toronto or in certain areas could present geography challenges with Buffalo and/or Toronto having to sign off on them, but there's so much revenue potential there.

I would also drop Houston off the list entirely. Sure there's a huge population and a lot of corporate sponsorship available, but Atlanta has clearly demonstrated that's not enough to make a city in a non-traditional market viable.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

That would actually be #1 on my list. Maybe as a co-#1 with a 2nd team actually in Toronto. Obviously putting a second team right in Toronto or in certain areas could present geography challenges with Buffalo and/or Toronto having to sign off on them, but there's so much revenue potential there.

I would also drop Houston off the list entirely. Sure there's a huge population and a lot of corporate sponsorship available, but Atlanta has clearly demonstrated that's not enough to make a city in a non-traditional market viable.

Obviously agreeing with the revenue potential, but I think Gary still wants to be in new markets before placing teams in markets where pro hockey is already king. Of course, with that reasoning I probably should've put Seattle or Milwaukee over QC...

The Aeros still draw pretty well, and of all the southern franchises I would say Dallas has been the most relatively stable save for the end of the Hicks era. A Texan rival, in one of America's largest metro's nonetheless, would be a decent move. The risk is there, but I think there is more of a hockey base in Houston to work off of than there ever was in Florida, Atlanta or Arizona.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Obviously agreeing with the revenue potential, but I think Gary still wants to be in new markets before placing teams in markets where pro hockey is already king. Of course, with that reasoning I probably should've put Seattle or Milwaukee over QC...

The Aeros still draw pretty well, and of all the southern franchises I would say Dallas has been the most relatively stable save for the end of the Hicks era. A Texan rival, in one of America's largest metro's nonetheless, would be a decent move. The risk is there, but I think there is more of a hockey base in Houston to work off of than there ever was in Florida, Atlanta or Arizona.

No disagreement that Bettman is likely to look at expansion of the game vs. placing a team in a market that makes sense.

I'm not in favor of expansion at all personally, but if they did expand, I'd like to see a half-and-half kinda thing. For every team in a more experimental/non-traditional market, we get a team in a can't miss (or as close to it as we can find). We can agree to disagree on Houston's viability, but if we agree that it would fit into the experimental/non-traditional market, I'd only support a new franchise there if it was counter-balanced by a new franchise somewhere between Buffalo and Toronto.