DickSmehlik
Registered User
Was it over a new arena?
They had just left the season I started to follow hockey.
They had just left the season I started to follow hockey.
City/owner wouldn't put up the money to build a new arena and they had pretty serious attendance issues.
http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/ind..._average_attendance_since_1989_90/118-2008-09
Final four years were 11,354, 7,838, 13,447 and 13,910 (one of those a Stanley Cup Finals team).
But the biggest issue by far was the building, the same story you had in QC, Winnipeg and Hartford (and what almost happened in Pittsburgh). When the building got old and the owner couldn't get someone to ante up, the team almost invariably moved.
Was it over a new arena?
They had just left the season I started to follow hockey.
Aside from that 7,838 season, that still looks better than quite a few teams today.
The fact that the ****** Minnesota Timberwolves still call Minneapolis home tells me that the choice to put the North Stars out in the 'burbs in the Met Center was ultimately the problem. That must be at least a partial explanation as to why one of the best hockey states had trouble filling an undersized NHL arena, be it a bad team or not. With the City of Minneapolis buying the Target Center from the NBA franchise in 1995, the North Stars seemed to have missed out on staying in the Land Of 1,000 Lakes by only two years. An absolute shame. Ironically, once the NHL fired up expansion by granting the Gunds, who abandoned the North Stars, a franchise in San Jose in 1991 made up of (also ironically) North Stars players/prospects, the U.S.'s most populated state was bound to get a franchise, be it through expansion or relocation.
What was stopping them from playing out of the Target Center without municipal ownership? Or did Green have an I-don't-want-to-share-my-arena-with-nobody mentality?
They were in a rush to knock down the Met Center to use the real estate to build stores to sell crap on a large scale (an Ikea store stands today where the Met Center once did).
The fact that the ****** Minnesota Timberwolves still call Minneapolis home tells me that the choice to put the North Stars out in the 'burbs in the Met Center was ultimately the problem.
An absolute shame.
The fact that the ****** Minnesota Timberwolves still call Minneapolis home tells me that the choice to put the North Stars out in the 'burbs in the Met Center was ultimately the problem. That must be at least a partial explanation as to why one of the best hockey states had trouble filling an undersized NHL arena, be it a bad team or not. With the City of Minneapolis buying the Target Center from the NBA franchise in 1995, the North Stars seemed to have missed out on staying in the Land Of 1,000 Lakes by only two years. An absolute shame. Ironically, once the NHL fired up expansion by granting the Gunds, who abandoned the North Stars, a franchise in San Jose in 1991 made up of (also ironically) North Stars players/prospects, the U.S.'s most populated state was bound to get a franchise, be it through expansion or relocation.
California already had a team when the Sharks were awarded the expansion. Remember LA? They had been around for quite a while...
Indeed, I think people are quick to forget that the Kings were part of the Expansion 6 that came into the League in '67.
I think a better question is this:
Would the Minnesota North Stars have left if the NHL had "pulled a Phoenix," bought the team, and jumped through hoops to ensure they stayed in MN?
The location, "out in the burbs" as it was, was along a major freeway, very convenient.
I1. Gary Bettman was hot to expand the NHL south of the Mason-Dixon line, and a lucrative location like Dallas was quite an option.
Ask people in Ottawa how convenient the location of Scotiabank Place (highway-adjacent) is.
Gary became commish on February 1, 1993; the Stars began play in Dallas in October 1993. Given the timeline, I think this was something Ziegler (or perhaps Stein) put his signature on.