Franchises to do away with

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ksp1957. Show ksp1957's posts

    Franchises to do away with

    If you ran the NHL, you could definitely do a better job than Gary Bettman. Which of these franchises would you either relocate or do away with ?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ksp1957. Show ksp1957's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    I'm going with Carolina. Move the f****rs back to Hartford. If we're going to hate this G.D. team, let's have a regional reason to do so.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beer-League-Goalie. Show Beer-League-Goalie's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    Why ask this here? The fools here would have a 40 team league with only one based in Canada if they had their way. They have no problems with Bettman or keeping a team losing money in a bad market.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ksp1957. Show ksp1957's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    In Response to Re: Franchises to do away with:
    [QUOTE]Why ask this here? The fools here would have a 40 team league with only one based in Canada if they had their way. They have no problems with Bettman or keeping a team losing money in a bad market.
    Posted by Beer-League-Goalie[/QUOTE]

    Actually, with one notable exception, most of the posters on here have some common sense. Maybe I'll start this up on hfboards if you start it up on proboards.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from elosias. Show elosias's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    I hope I'm not that exception.  I'm all for more teams in Canada.  No American team (with a couple exceptions) gives you goosebumps when you see the playoff anthems sung. 

    I should have voted Florida, but I had to be a smart a$s.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dover26. Show Dover26's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    Down with Bettman, Bring back common sense.  Is it clear that Bettman has something against Canada?  He has not problem taking teams out of Canada, but there is no way a money losing franchise will be allowed to move back to their home and native land (oh Canada).
    To answer your question, Get rid of the tropical teams that don't make a profit and put them back in the Canadian Tundra where ice machines are not necessary.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoldOnBlack. Show GoldOnBlack's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    Some say I'm quite radical but i say that if your city doesn't get a proper winter, you should probably not have a pro ice hockey team. If fans are coming to games in shorts ad flip flops for the better part of the season, you should probably not have a pro ice hockey team. It's a cold, hard fact that ice hockey is not as universal (in the states) as the other pro sports, so move all southern teams (those losing money first) to northern states or Canadian provinces where hockey is in our blood (and our backyards). Hockey is ever-growing up here and i'd much rather watch a Hamilton-Quebec game rather than a Florida-Nashville game.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Canbostondoit. Show Canbostondoit's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    Phoenix. to Winnepeg
    Carolina to Hartford
    Florida to Quebec
    Tampa Bay to Portland or Seatle
    Montreal Canadiens to Moscow ( new name Montreal Kozomofucknuts)
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kennedy97. Show Kennedy97's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    Ditch the Islanders. That franchise no longer has any reason to exist, which is sad, as they have established a record that will probably never be broken (19 straight playoff series wins between 1980-84).

    But they've been one of the worst franchises in American sports for years. They're the NHL's version of the LA Clippers and Detroit Lions. If any franchise was to be shut down, they're the one.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dhitch. Show dhitch's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    Islanders have too much rich history, not to mention Cup wins.

    If a team got dropped it'd have to be one with no past and no real future.
    Nashville, Phoenix are the only two options in my opinion.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kennedy97. Show Kennedy97's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    In Response to Re: Franchises to do away with:
    [QUOTE]Islanders have too much rich history, not to mention Cup wins. If a team got dropped it'd have to be one with no past and no real future. Nashville, Phoenix are the only two options in my opinion.
    Posted by dhitch[/QUOTE]

    The Isles better get their Lighthouse Project from the planning stage to the reality stage, or they're going to be defunct, Cups, rich history and all.  And if that happens, we can add Kansas City or some other town that will probably have a Honeymoon with the NHL before settling back into disinterest (like the two teams you mention, Atlanta, Florida, etc) to the list of "what franchises would you like to see erased" discussion.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    In Response to Re: Franchises to do away with:
    [QUOTE]Phoenix. to Winnepeg Carolina to Hartford Florida to Quebec Tampa Bay to Portland or Seattle Montreal Canadiens to Moscow ( new name Montreal Kozomofucknuts) Posted by Canbostondoit[/QUOTE]

    There inlies (new word i'm not checking it) allot of the problem Atlanta, Hartford, Quebec didn't work and Bettman went and might consider going back too. Quebec had good teams but that province already had the Habs. Hartford was in a lowsey arena (well aside form a few great concerts "The Mall!")

    The Sharks vs. Golden Seals Better or the Avs vs. Rockies much better.Those areas worked because people in those communities have money. Family Income per capita is more and there was a need or the fans wanted another sport.

    Portland and Seattle would be perfect already junior and minor league hockey there having success. Bettman only looks at Media Florida and Atlanta Population marketing dollars. Seattle and Portland would grow the TV revenue eventually which is why Bettman overlooks the right areas.

    Winnipeg could make it with the right owner and new arena but Quebec is tough. Love the new Habs name!  KOMO! I want blood when the Leafs and Bs meet in that first game!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dkrejci46. Show dkrejci46's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    This will never happen but the Islanders should be moved. What with the massive competition for fans between the Devils and the Rangers, they can't keep up.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from squeef. Show squeef's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    I must say that Florida has no business having an NHL team, give them another basketball team and they would forget all about hockey. Scr3w phoenix too. Move the "talent" around and distribute it amongst other teams to increase competition. Or bring back teams in Winnepeg and Quebec, seeing as so much of the player population is from canada its a shame there arent more teams up in the frozen tundra.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from bluefox70. Show bluefox70's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with


    I have been to a game in Nashville and you would be amazed at how fun the crowd is at their rink and the game is growing there.  

    I would dump Atlanta (non-sports town) or the Panthers.  I would agree with others, move them to Quebec and Winnipeg or Hartford.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ksp1957. Show ksp1957's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    The key for the NHL over the next few seasons will be to get franchises in Quebec, Winnipeg, Hamilton and hopefully Hartford. I agree with GoldonBlack. Anyplace that doesn't actually have snow in the winter and have ice not in a cold drink should have an NHL franchise. Other than that, give those places either AHL or IHL franchises.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kennedy97. Show Kennedy97's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    I would LOVE to see an NHL team back in Quebec City and Winnipeg.

    But the question is where they would play. The Colisee Pepsi in Quebec would need a serious upgrade as well as an expansion: it only seats around 15K right now. It would probably require a new arena, in all honesty, and I don't know if a very small (by North American NHL city standards) city like Quebec would want to foot the bill for something like that.

    Winnipeg is in better shape--they do have a new arena, but it's also small: its capacity is also 15,000. That's considerably smaller than any other NHL arena, so they'd likely have to expand there, too, which as we all know isn't done cheaply.

    It's really too bad: even with the very weak Canadian dollar in the 90s, both Winnipeg and Quebec could probably have survived had the league been set up the way it is now. Even a flawed revenue sharing system + salary cap would have probably been enough to keep both clubs afloat.

    I really really really hope I'm wrong, but I don't think we're going to see NHL hockey in either of those cities again.

    As for the "natural ice" rule, that means San Jose, Dallas, Anaheim and perhaps DC and St. Louis would all have to go. All 5 of those franchises are drawing well now (and some, like Dallas and SJ always have, despite their being in non-traditional hockey markets).

    But Miami? Atlanta?  Phoenix? Never a reason for the NHL to have been there at all, and I wouldn't miss either of those franchises.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kanes-Donuts. Show Kanes-Donuts's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    everyone talks about keeping teams away from failing markets well news flash everyone nhl hockey failed in winnipeg an quebec so why go back? so much for the legendery hockey passion in canada lol.

    i think kansas city and portland and las vegas and even hartford are better cites for hockey.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beer-League-Goalie. Show Beer-League-Goalie's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    I see Economics as well as English weren't your best subjects in school, eh KD?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ksp1957. Show ksp1957's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    Hell, I'm just curious which Portland KD means for an NHL franchise. The one in Maine or the one in Oregon.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beer-League-Goalie. Show Beer-League-Goalie's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    In Response to Re: Franchises to do away with:
    [QUOTE]Hell, I'm just curious which Portland KD means for an NHL franchise. The one in Maine or the one in Oregon.
    Posted by ksp1957[/QUOTE]

    Well, it isn't Portland Ontario. Maybe Portland Indiana?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kennedy97. Show Kennedy97's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    In Response to Re: Franchises to do away with:
    [QUOTE]everyone talks about keeping teams away from failing markets well news flash everyone nhl hockey failed in winnipeg an quebec so why go back? so much for the legendery hockey passion in canada lol.
    Posted by Kanes-Donuts[/QUOTE]

    Hockey failed for economic reasons in Canada in the 90s. During that period, the Canadian dollar was worth 60% of what the US dollar was worth (as opposed to now, when it's 90%). Unlike the Minnesota North Stars, who played in front of nobody by the time they moved, the 2 Canadian cities that failed were still drawing fans to their areanas throughout their decline (Quebec especially). But given their small arenas, small population size, weak dollar, no revenue sharing and no salary cap they simply couldn't keep up with larger cities or smaller American ones.  Case in point: both Winnipeg and Quebec had higher attendance figures than the Hartford Whalers, but the Whalers lasted the longest.

    Bottom line: the Canadian teams didn't move due to "lack of passion" from their fan bases.

    The economic landscape has changed...in today's conditions, I don't think Winnipeg and Quebec would have had to relocate (upgrade arenas, certainly). The sad reality is that they did, and coming back to an area isn't an easy thing to do. I'd love to see it in these 2 cases, though.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    Atlanta, Phoenix and Nashville make the least sense from an economic standpoint as well as a cultural standpoint right now.
    Especially when you consider that there are some very strong and proven hockey markets out there right now.
    I would say the top of the heap for relocation should be Winnipeg.It's true their current arena (only four years old) only has capacity for 15,200. But it was designed with expansion in mind. They have a plan in place that would increase their capacity by 1,800 (making it the same size as Edmonton's rink) and since it was in the original design can be done for $2.5 million. Not too bad at all (the plan involves adding standing room seating in the concourses like they have in Edmonton).

    Beyond that, there are a number of proven markets for relocation. Hamilton and Hartford (Quebec won't get the arena) are good options of teams who have previously been in the NHL. Maybe Kansas City as well as they have a quality arena.

    New cities, I'd look at Portland, Oregon (Just look at how that city has supported the Winterhawks and you'll see they're a hockey town) or Halifax (they could draw from all the maritimes and be a good rival for Boston).

    If the NHL is set on maintaining a presence in the south, Oklahoma City has a storied hockey history unlike most cities not close to the Canadian border. They've had the Blazers, Coyotes, Warriors and Stars. They'd be my last choice of the cities I've mentioned, but the one southern-ish city that could do it. At least it gets cold enough in the winter that they have a handful of outdoor rinks.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from GABees. Show GABees's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    Atlanta is better than Florida or Nashville. There are more northern transplants in ATL than Nashville - not to mention some history of hockey - the Atlanta Flames did very well but were sold out by owners who made big bucks in exchange for moving them to Calgary.   So I don't buy the "cultural"  angle.   

    But ATL is like Los Angeles in that you have to do well to get huge support. That said, last year ATL was horrid and they pretty much matched Nashville's attendance.  Every other year they beat Nashville.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Franchises to do away with

    cut down the league by 2 teams.

    dump

    NYR
    Chicago
    Detroit
    Toronto
    Montreal
    and Boston of course

    Add
    Houston
    New Orleans
    Orlando
    San Antonio

    Just kidding!  Who would add southern teams to a northern sport!
    I really meant add;
    Tampa
    Nashville
    Atlanta
    Phoenix

    no, wait...
     

Share