Second team in Toronto? (along with Vegas, Seattle, Quebec City)

[cw]

It wouldn't be nearly as much fun if Canada faced talent like Norway all the time.

But that's never been a reality of international hockey. It's not NHL expansion into Nashville and Atlanta that drive Russian and Czech interest in the sport and the influx of Europeans into the NHL is not the result of the NHL's expansion.

I confess, though, points for originality. I've seen a lot of people in recent years try to give Ronald Reagan the credit for fall of communism but you're the first person I've seen to try and do that with Gary Bettman.

Absolute nonsense. That's a straw man argument if I ever saw one.

Plainly, I did not say that "NHL expansion into Nashville and Atlanta ... drive(s) Russian and Czech interest in the sport"

 

[Kin]

It's also worth mentioning that the majority of the growth you're talking about regarding US players in the game took place well before the era of Bettman's expansion. US% of players pre-1980 Olympics, a tournament that had nothing whatsoever to do with the NHL(who, it should be noted, are actively opposed to participation in the Olympics), was 10.4. By the end of the decade, the percentage of US born players had increased by 50%.

Conversely, the first year in the 90's the US population of players was 16.7% by the end of the decade it had shot up to....16.2%.

It's important, in this conversation, not to be giving the NHL credit for the things that would have happened any way or are just a result of the way the population is changing that is reflected everywhere. Every major professional sport is growing, whether they've seen an increase in the # of teams and parity or not.

 

[Kin]

Absolute nonsense. That's a straw man argument if I ever saw one.

Plainly, I did not say that "NHL expansion into Nashville and Atlanta ... drive(s) Russian and Czech interest in the sport"

And likewise, I've plainly not said that I think the NHL shouldn't have expanded from 6 teams. In fact, quite the opposite, I've said that because of changes to the population and available player bases the expansions from the Original 6 Era and into the 90's were absolutely justified and spoke to the fact that the game, completely irrespective of the NHL's efforts, had grown to the point where more teams were justified.

But what you did say is that international tournaments wouldn't be fun if Canada played Norway all the time which has nothing whatsoever to do with the NHL. The interest in the sport in Russia and the Czech Republic and Sweden was not created by the league and the league didn't create the high quality of play those countries are responsible for in those tournaments. The Swedish, Czech and Russian leagues develop good players all by their lonesome.

 

[bustaheims]

Sure and Toronto has the ACC. My point there about Toronto and Seattle was more about the lack of deals for building new arenas(or at least the sort of massive renovations that would be required in Seattle or Hamilton), and some might say the political will, that I think would be a precondition for any sort of expansion.

Absolutely, but, the promise of a major league team to fill said arena often helps cities to be more agreeable to the type of undertaking that would be necessary.

 

[Kin]

Sure and Toronto has the ACC. My point there about Toronto and Seattle was more about the lack of deals for building new arenas(or at least the sort of massive renovations that would be required in Seattle or Hamilton), and some might say the political will, that I think would be a precondition for any sort of expansion.

Absolutely, but, the promise of a major league team to fill said arena often helps cities to be more agreeable to the type of undertaking that would be necessary.

Sure but that's where it becomes a chicken and the egg scenario where you need to promise a team to get the city to build an arena but you need concrete plans for the arena for a major pro sports league to agree to expand.

Unless, of course, if someone like Bettman is promising a franchise to Seattle if they build without a formal expansion process but that seems relatively unlikely to me to say nothing of whether or not that would even work in Seattle.

 

[bustaheims]

Unless, of course, if someone like Bettman is promising a franchise to Seattle if they build without a formal expansion process but that seems relatively unlikely to me to say nothing of whether or not that would even work in Seattle.

There have been reports of the league having meetings with groups from Seattle over the past year or so, so, that could very well be the case. Whether or not that would work for Seattle is obviously the big stumbling block there.

 

[Kin]

Unless, of course, if someone like Bettman is promising a franchise to Seattle if they build without a formal expansion process but that seems relatively unlikely to me to say nothing of whether or not that would even work in Seattle.

There have been reports of the league having meetings with groups from Seattle over the past year or so, so, that could very well be the case. Whether or not that would work for Seattle is obviously the big stumbling block there.

Yeah, so, if this report was "Seattle is at the very top of the NHL's wishlist for future expansion and Gary Bettman is trying his hardest to make it work" I'd buy that 100%.

 

[seahawk]

For what it's worth, Seattle does have an available arena that can seat 15K+ that could be used until a better facility is built.

Sure and Toronto has the ACC. My point there about Toronto and Seattle was more about the lack of deals for building new arenas(or at least the sort of massive renovations that would be required in Seattle or Hamilton), and some might say the political will, that I think would be a precondition for any sort of expansion.

I've been to the Key Arena in Seattle. It could host the NHL for a year as a last resort. But there are a lot of issues. The scoreboard actually hangs over one end of the ice and not over center ice. Additionally, it would have one end with no seats. When the building was last renovated the seating and sightlines were done with basketball as the primary consideration. And the seats are some of the smallest I've had to cram my 6 foot 2 plus-sized frame into.

The proposed new facility near Safeco and CenturyLink would need to get a shovel in the ground before I look at placing a team there.

 

[KW Sluggo]

As for 80 more AHLers, I doubt half the '67 Cup winning Leafs could crack the NHL coming to camp with their beer bellies. The players of today are bigger, faster, stronger, better conditioned, better equipped and better coached.

I confess, I don't follow. I don't think there's anyway to dispute that this would add 13% more players to the league, all of whom aren't currently good enough to be there.

And that's true.

But I think taking that view exclusively flirts with the ostrich with it's head in the sand. 

The quality of that AHL player today is significantly superior to days gone by. A lot of those guys get called up and fill in admirably.

If you've got four cities that can fill seats to watch them and be entertained, then you've got an entertainment mandate, an improved broadcasting footprint and an improved business. And with that, you're growing the sport along with the league - which for hockey I think is critical for it's longer term survival relative to other sports because it's an expensive game to play.

Why Gary Bettman was right about hockey in Phoenix

Hockey?s Growth in the United States: 2003-2013

Hockey?s Growth in the United States ? 1990-2010
So there you have it. As the NHL?s popularity continues to grow in each market, so does hockey participation. As I said, population growth certainly plays a role, but to see the high percentages of growth is a testament to the impact the game is having across the country.

The growth in hockey registration in Canada, US and Europe/Russia since 2000 when the NHL last expanded exceeds 13% additional NHLers handily. The growth in U20 registered hockey players is 16.8% just between 2009 and 2013. For example:
http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/839306-membership-statistics
http://www.iihf.com/iihf-home/the-iihf/survey-of-players.html
link to article with 2009 data
It's hard to project a grossly noticeable dilution of NHL talent in 2017 with the grassroots growing the game as it has. Arguably, they'll be playing the game even better -  shortly after expansion.

I watched the original six league and the players of today are vastly superior hockey players. I think it's part of the reason we don't see the hockey superstars of today separating themselves from the pack as much as they once did - because the 2nd-4th liners are so much better.

When they quickly expanded the league from 6 teams to 16 in six years and also had the WHA competing with the NHL, we saw a degradation in how the sport got played. No question. But I think that's long been corrected and surpassed.

Beyond a brief growing period for an expansion team to get competitive, I think they can add these four teams with barely a blip in the growing talent pool and how well the game is currently executed at the NHL level.

How many years on is this and still 29th in attendance etc etc and bringing in Trooper & Lover Boy to juice attendance?

Oh yeah, Gary was right about the NHL in Phoenix

 

[cw]

These game sevens and OT games may not turn your crank but they interest a lot more folks than watching a dynasty sweep series four zip round after round, year after year, that only the wealthy markets can afford.

Sure, I'm assuming you mean the wealthy markets like Edmonton and Long Island that constructed the greatest dynasties the sport saw post-original 6?

Even still, the Oilers didn't sweep all of their titles in 4 game series. Neither did the Islanders. Even the years you mention where the final series were blowouts were the result of a handful of legitimately great teams all being lumped together in one conference(and, no, it wasn't because Detroit, Dallas and Colorado were in any way "richer" than Toronto, New York and Philadelphia). I would very much like to speak to any hockey fan who remembers the various series between the Red Wings and Avs or Avs and Stars from those years as being in any way an inferior product to the hockey we're watching now.

Oilers and Islanders were dynasties long before the impact of money really took hold. But in my opinion, the Habs, also before the money took hold, were the top dynasty post '67.

8 Cups in 12 seasons ('68-'79)
4 Cups in a row between '76-'79

Those '76 and '77 seasons were arguably the most dominating the sport has ever seen.

'76 => 11 regular season losses and only 1 playoff game lost
'77 => 8 regular season (.825 pts win%, set NHL pts record in 80 games) and only 2 playoff games lost (to the up and coming Islanders dynasty)

But it's remarkable how those dynasties are so acceptable to you when they came in the wake and significantly as a result of the worst handling of expansion in the history of the league that weakened the quality of hockey throughout the league -the very thing you claim to protest.

In '66-67, 171 Canadians made up 98.4% of the 6 team league.
http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/nationality-totals/nhl-players-1966-67-stats.html

By 1979-80, Canadians (552 of them) still made up 84.4% with the Americans helping some by providing most of the difference with a few Euros like Salming.
http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/nationality-totals/nhl-players-1979-80-stats.html

But here's the problem: in a pretty short period of time, demand for Canadian hockey players in the NHL grew from 171 to 552 - more than tripled. In some of the 70s, it was even worse with the WHA. Now, expansion came about in part because of the WHA - the NHL tried to starve the WHA of talent for their teams.

But the quality of hockey overall suffered significantly. The over expansion contributed to the existence of those dynasties and silly high league scoring and records. And also they set league records in futility.

It's strange to me that you would look upon those dynasty periods of hockey fondly while trying to maintain you want to see hockey played at a high level - because during the 70s and 80s, the diluted game was not played well and that was repeatedly documented because it was so easy for anyone to see.

It's underscored by the fact that there are 43 fewer Canadians in the league today than there were in 1979-80 - even though the league today has 9 more NHL teams. The growth of hockey in Canada and the Canadian talent it has produced has not regressed. Canadian players of today are bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, more skilled, better equipped and better coached. Post 60s, about 70+% of the indoor rinks were constructed to assist development. Canada has by far more rinks, more development, better hockey schooling and vastly more registered hockey youth than the 70s and 80s.

If they expand by four teams in 2017, they'll finally have about the same number of Canadians playing in the NHL as there were during those dynasty years you were so fond of 30-40 years ago. And those Canadians of 2017 are and will be a heck of a lot bigger, faster, stronger, more skilled, smarter, etc, than the 550 or so Canadians who played in the NHL in the 1970-80s.

 

[cw]

As for 80 more AHLers, I doubt half the '67 Cup winning Leafs could crack the NHL coming to camp with their beer bellies. The players of today are bigger, faster, stronger, better conditioned, better equipped and better coached.

I confess, I don't follow. I don't think there's anyway to dispute that this would add 13% more players to the league, all of whom aren't currently good enough to be there.

And that's true.

But I think taking that view exclusively flirts with the ostrich with it's head in the sand. 

The quality of that AHL player today is significantly superior to days gone by. A lot of those guys get called up and fill in admirably.

If you've got four cities that can fill seats to watch them and be entertained, then you've got an entertainment mandate, an improved broadcasting footprint and an improved business. And with that, you're growing the sport along with the league - which for hockey I think is critical for it's longer term survival relative to other sports because it's an expensive game to play.

Why Gary Bettman was right about hockey in Phoenix

Hockey?s Growth in the United States: 2003-2013

Hockey?s Growth in the United States ? 1990-2010
So there you have it. As the NHL?s popularity continues to grow in each market, so does hockey participation. As I said, population growth certainly plays a role, but to see the high percentages of growth is a testament to the impact the game is having across the country.

The growth in hockey registration in Canada, US and Europe/Russia since 2000 when the NHL last expanded exceeds 13% additional NHLers handily. The growth in U20 registered hockey players is 16.8% just between 2009 and 2013. For example:
http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/839306-membership-statistics
http://www.iihf.com/iihf-home/the-iihf/survey-of-players.html
link to article with 2009 data
It's hard to project a grossly noticeable dilution of NHL talent in 2017 with the grassroots growing the game as it has. Arguably, they'll be playing the game even better -  shortly after expansion.

I watched the original six league and the players of today are vastly superior hockey players. I think it's part of the reason we don't see the hockey superstars of today separating themselves from the pack as much as they once did - because the 2nd-4th liners are so much better.

When they quickly expanded the league from 6 teams to 16 in six years and also had the WHA competing with the NHL, we saw a degradation in how the sport got played. No question. But I think that's long been corrected and surpassed.

Beyond a brief growing period for an expansion team to get competitive, I think they can add these four teams with barely a blip in the growing talent pool and how well the game is currently executed at the NHL level.

How many years on is this and still 29th in attendance etc etc and bringing in Trooper & Lover Boy to juice attendance?

Oh yeah, Gary was right about the NHL in Phoenix

The bankruptcy judge and the City of Glendale certainly thought Bettman was right.

Shame on Bettman for standing with a city government who invested in his league to mitigate their losses.

Shame on Bettman for trying to sustain a franchise in one of the larger US TV markets.

Shame on Bettman for trying to sustain a franchise in the second fastest growing population in the US - that includes a bunch of retiring Canadians.

The sale of the team was finalized August 2013 - just a year ago. If you don't think that didn't hurt seasons tickets into the 2013-14 season and the uncertain situation brought on by bad management and the bankruptcy hasn't hurt seasons tickets into the 2013-14 season, I can easily suggest some schools for for you. Won't cost much. Marketing 101 and Business 101 will suffice.

They were something like 22nd in league attendance in 2006 - before the big trouble hit - much better than they were this past year and those numbers were achieved with a poor team and bad management.

As I said way back, it will take a few years after the sale was finalized just to cure the damage Moyes did trying to scuttle the club and ticket sales for Balsillie. And it will be about 10 years before they'll see something respectable in terms of attendance. They're crawling out of a much deeper hole than they were in before bankruptcy.

In the interim, even with less than stellar attendance, this was the best deal for the city of Glendale - which was a big issue in our discussions - because the deal reduces the losses the city otherwise would have been guaranteed to face with an empty arena.

 

[Kin]

Oilers and Islanders were dynasties long before the impact of money really took hold. But in my opinion, the Habs, also before the money took hold, were the top dynasty post '67.

8 Cups in 12 seasons ('68-'79)
4 Cups in a row between '76-'79

For me the existence of the WHA is why I'd lean towards the Islanders/Oilers as the greatest dynasties post-original 6. Those Habs teams had a lot of success but it was in a league that didn't feature many of the game's best players.

In terms of individual years though I might lean towards some of the Red Wings teams of the 90's and early 00's because that was when you had more Russian and Eastern European players in the league. Admittedly, they didn't put together the same sort of runs of successes as the Habs, Isles or Oilers but that's really just because it was an era of great teams.

But it's remarkable how those dynasties are so acceptable to you when they came in the wake and significantly as a result of the worst handling of expansion in the history of the league that weakened the quality of hockey throughout the league -the very thing you claim to protest.

Except that's emphatically not the thing I "claim to protest" and you know it isn't. I've specifically said I'm not talking about hockey "throughout the league" but, rather, about the league's best teams. I do not dispute that hockey at the lowest tier in the NHL right now is stronger than ever.

It's strange to me that you would look upon those dynasty periods of hockey fondly while trying to maintain you want to see hockey played at a high level - because during the 70s and 80s, the diluted game was not played well and that was repeatedly documented because it was so easy for anyone to see.

Well, it's only strange to you because you keep refusing to actually address what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about games between the Kansas City Scouts and the Cleveland Barons. I'm not talking about how strong "hockey" was as an abstract construct. I'm specifically talking about the sport at what should be it's highest echelon(which, because this seems to not be taking hold I will state again that by the "highest" echelon am not refering to the NHL as a whole but the best teams within the NHL).

When people talk about sports and what they enjoy about them, they tend to focus on the best things. The highest moments. They do not look at the hundreds and thousands of games that will be played in a season and try to sort of pin an aggregate on the quality thereof. Ask a Basketball fan about the 1980's and, I'm guessing, most won't start talking about the futility of the Denver Nuggets or Dallas Mavericks. I'm guessing that what would stick out for them is the Lakers and the Celtics. Bird and Magic. The Bad Boy Pistons.

They make movies about great teams. Greatness captures the imagination. David Halberstam didn't write books about really strong league-wide play. He wrote books about the Yankees and Bulls. George Plimpton didn't write about how terrific the state of boxing in 1975, he wrote about Ali-Foreman. Moments of greatness capture the imagination in a way that cannot be replicated by anything else. Everyone being sorta good does not replace that even if it's better for the business of the league.

 

[Britishbulldog]

For what it's worth, Seattle does have an available arena that can seat 15K+ that could be used until a better facility is built.

Sure and Toronto has the ACC. My point there about Toronto and Seattle was more about the lack of deals for building new arenas(or at least the sort of massive renovations that would be required in Seattle or Hamilton), and some might say the political will, that I think would be a precondition for any sort of expansion.

I've been to the Key Arena in Seattle. It could host the NHL for a year as a last resort. But there are a lot of issues. The scoreboard actually hangs over one end of the ice and not over center ice. Additionally, it would have one end with no seats. When the building was last renovated the seating and sightlines were done with basketball as the primary consideration. And the seats are some of the smallest I've had to cram my 6 foot 2 plus-sized frame into.

The proposed new facility near Safeco and CenturyLink would need to get a shovel in the ground before I look at placing a team there.

I keep hearing that Seattle and Las Vegas are the 2 top American destinations but I would still prefer to see the team in Portland and share the NBA arena as it already houses a hockey team:

Get Florida Panthers there and fill out the Pacific division.

Then expand to Quebec for huge money.

Tampa Bay have really become a viable franchise under Jeff Vinik so I can't see it moving.

Carolina, NYI or New Jersey were the other franchises but I don't see them moving either.

The Central can obviously use a team as well.  Las Vegas??  I would hate that as a location but it is west of Phoenix so it doesn't fit anyway.  I still push for Kansas City who I don't think is ever mentioned.

 

[Zee]

2017 eh?  So on Toronto's 100th anniversary of having an NHL team we get a second team?  Who wants to lay odds that the new Toronto team wins a cup before the Leafs?

 

[Redleaf]

2017 eh?  So on Toronto's 100th anniversary of having an NHL team we get a second team?  Who wants to lay odds that the new Toronto team wins a cup before the Leafs?

Who wants to bet the new team is called the Toronto 67's?

 

[Bates]

I suspect you will see them jump a bit this year as I hear that ticket sales are way up and prices have increased quite a bit as well.  Wonder what the reaction will be when they average more fans than Winnipeg??

As for 80 more AHLers, I doubt half the '67 Cup winning Leafs could crack the NHL coming to camp with their beer bellies. The players of today are bigger, faster, stronger, better conditioned, better equipped and better coached.

I confess, I don't follow. I don't think there's anyway to dispute that this would add 13% more players to the league, all of whom aren't currently good enough to be there.

And that's true.

But I think taking that view exclusively flirts with the ostrich with it's head in the sand. 

The quality of that AHL player today is significantly superior to days gone by. A lot of those guys get called up and fill in admirably.

If you've got four cities that can fill seats to watch them and be entertained, then you've got an entertainment mandate, an improved broadcasting footprint and an improved business. And with that, you're growing the sport along with the league - which for hockey I think is critical for it's longer term survival relative to other sports because it's an expensive game to play.

Why Gary Bettman was right about hockey in Phoenix

Hockey?s Growth in the United States: 2003-2013

Hockey?s Growth in the United States ? 1990-2010
So there you have it. As the NHL?s popularity continues to grow in each market, so does hockey participation. As I said, population growth certainly plays a role, but to see the high percentages of growth is a testament to the impact the game is having across the country.

The growth in hockey registration in Canada, US and Europe/Russia since 2000 when the NHL last expanded exceeds 13% additional NHLers handily. The growth in U20 registered hockey players is 16.8% just between 2009 and 2013. For example:
http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/839306-membership-statistics
http://www.iihf.com/iihf-home/the-iihf/survey-of-players.html
link to article with 2009 data
It's hard to project a grossly noticeable dilution of NHL talent in 2017 with the grassroots growing the game as it has. Arguably, they'll be playing the game even better -  shortly after expansion.

I watched the original six league and the players of today are vastly superior hockey players. I think it's part of the reason we don't see the hockey superstars of today separating themselves from the pack as much as they once did - because the 2nd-4th liners are so much better.

When they quickly expanded the league from 6 teams to 16 in six years and also had the WHA competing with the NHL, we saw a degradation in how the sport got played. No question. But I think that's long been corrected and surpassed.

Beyond a brief growing period for an expansion team to get competitive, I think they can add these four teams with barely a blip in the growing talent pool and how well the game is currently executed at the NHL level.

How many years on is this and still 29th in attendance etc etc and bringing in Trooper & Lover Boy to juice attendance?

Oh yeah, Gary was right about the NHL in Phoenix

The bankruptcy judge and the City of Glendale certainly thought Bettman was right.

Shame on Bettman for standing with a city government who invested in his league to mitigate their losses.

Shame on Bettman for trying to sustain a franchise in one of the larger US TV markets.

Shame on Bettman for trying to sustain a franchise in the second fastest growing population in the US - that includes a bunch of retiring Canadians.

The sale of the team was finalized August 2013 - just a year ago. If you don't think that didn't hurt seasons tickets into the 2013-14 season and the uncertain situation brought on by bad management and the bankruptcy hasn't hurt seasons tickets into the 2013-14 season, I can easily suggest some schools for for you. Won't cost much. Marketing 101 and Business 101 will suffice.

They were something like 22nd in league attendance in 2006 - before the big trouble hit - much better than they were this past year and those numbers were achieved with a poor team and bad management.

As I said way back, it will take a few years after the sale was finalized just to cure the damage Moyes did trying to scuttle the club and ticket sales for Balsillie. And it will be about 10 years before they'll see something respectable in terms of attendance. They're crawling out of a much deeper hole than they were in before bankruptcy.

In the interim, even with less than stellar attendance, this was the best deal for the city of Glendale - which was a big issue in our discussions - because the deal reduces the losses the city otherwise would have been guaranteed to face with an empty arena.

 

[Kin]

I suspect you will see them jump a bit this year as I hear that ticket sales are way up and prices have increased quite a bit as well.  Wonder what the reaction will be when they average more fans than Winnipeg?

Do they still count as fans when taxpayers have been on the hook for so much of their recent losses? You become stakeholders at some point, no?

 

[Bates]

Not many are from Glendale so they bore no cost, they buy tickets and are fans, and nothing more.

 

[Joe S.]

2017 eh?  So on Toronto's 100th anniversary of having an NHL team we get a second team?  Who wants to lay odds that the new Toronto team wins a cup before the Leafs?

I'll lay odds that Toronto will never have a second team.

 

[Zee]

2017 eh?  So on Toronto's 100th anniversary of having an NHL team we get a second team?  Who wants to lay odds that the new Toronto team wins a cup before the Leafs?

I'll lay odds that Toronto will never have a second team.

That non existent team will probably still win the Cup before the Leafs!  BA-BOOM!