On the talent dilution issue, I think people really overestimate how much expansion dilutes talent when the league already has 30 teams. We're not even talking about one player per team distributed around the league. In 1979, which is the end of the expansion era most associated with talent dilution, the new teams each expanded the league by 5.9%. The next expansion team will expand the league by just over half of what each of the 1979 expansion teams did... 3.1%.
Or looked at another way. The league expanded by 250% in the years from 1967-1979. It expanded by 43% in the 90s. The 2017-2030 expansion will only have expanded the league 13% or 20% depending on if we get 2 more or 4 more teams.
At least one team is a done deal for them to be opening expansion.
It sucks for fans of middling teams but there isn’t much separating the best teams from the teams that get seeded 4-7 in many years. It’s why Boston with the best regular season record ever gets knocked out in the first round and it’s an upset but not that much of an upset. Even last year, Dallas as the top seed in the West had to play a Vegas team that was 8th but had injuries/lady luck gone their way, might have been 1st themselves. If Dallas had ultimately one, they would’ve had to defeat a team capable of knocking them out in every single round, despite being the best team in the West and arguably the best team in the league.I mostly agree, except that it will leave more teams without a superstar level talent. That kinda sucks for fans.
Okay. You can be against expansion and that's fine, that's your prerogative. But if you advocate for relocation specifically, put up or shut up.I'm sorry, but that's a stupid reason. And it has nothing to do with the fact that my team is the last or second-to-last team that would ever relocate. Expansion affects my team and my quality of viewing a sport which I love. I don't want to lose a player in the expansion draft and I don't want to watch a watered-down product when other teams play.
Canadians (I'm Canadian btw) need to understand that growth is not in Canada. We are lucky to have markets like Winnpeg and Ottawa already who have struggled. Canada doesn't need more teams. Quebec city is smaller than the aforementioned markets. It does very little for a national TV deal in Canada and NOTHING for the US (where the money is). NHL isn't looking to be a gate driven league (like the other major sports leagues and basically every one sport that isn't considered minor league). So you can shout blue in the face but most people running a business would do exactly what the NHL is trying to do.
Canada should consider getting teams in other sports even though they are rich in price.
Atlanta Thrashers in their last year were doing better attendance than Winnipeg this time last year.
The NHL going for a third kick at the can in Atlanta before it even considers adding a second team to the GTA, is pretty laughable IMO.
I live in the GTA it's not the hockey populous it once was. It's actually not much of a hockey town I'd say but much more a leafs town. In the 80s/90s... maybe... now? Nope.The NHL going for a third kick at the can in Atlanta before it even considers adding a second team to the GTA, is pretty laughable IMO.
With them wanting to add two more teams to 34 and likely two more to get to 36, I would maybe like to see a rewrite of the CHL vs NHL agreement to move some talent. I would try to remove the 20yo requirement of the AHL or bump it down to 19yo.Too bad the owners want this free money regardless of how it impacts the on ice product. The league already has too many AHL level players.
Ottawa says hi and they are quite removed from Toronto. Where would this new team be? Vaughan? Where you have massive italian leafs fans and asian basketball fans? Brampton/Missisauga where basketball, soccer and cricket are big? Out east Scarborough/Pickering/Ajax? The GTA is not the same anymore where the puckhead media pretends they are stuck in the 80s writing blogs and complaining on radio shows no one under 40 listens to.I really do think the NHL as a whole would love to put another team in Ontario, but they're not about to force the Leafs to accept one and they have a veto over GTA2 and Hamilton.
I would rather see GTA or Hamilton over Atlanta. New York and LA easily support two teams. I think GTA could too.I really do think the NHL as a whole would love to put another team in Ontario, but they're not about to force the Leafs to accept one and they have a veto over GTA2 and Hamilton.
I don't think that's the talent dilution people are talking about though. There's enough turnover year over year to know that just adding one or two teams isn't going to mean that there are suddenly a lot more players who shouldn't be in the NHL. The talent dilution is more on the upper echelon of players.
Either teams can build a group with a lot of high end talent locked up or teams will rely on a couple of guys to drive the bus. Either way there would be less parity in the league. We're already seeing that parity isn't what it was 5-15 years ago (although I think the flat cap plays a bigger role). And I'm not sure the league is as healthy as it is when there's less parity over a long period of time considering how gate driven the league still is.
I would rather see GTA or Hamilton over Atlanta. New York and LA easily support two teams. I think GTA could too.
Technically I don't believe they have an actual veto per se, but the first part (they're not going to force the Leafs) may as well serve as one.I really do think the NHL as a whole would love to put another team in Ontario, but they're not about to force the Leafs to accept one and they have a veto over GTA2 and Hamilton.
Complain to MLSE then, not the NHL BoG.I would rather see GTA or Hamilton over Atlanta. New York and LA easily support two teams. I think GTA could too.
Technically I don't believe they have an actual veto per se, but the first part (they're not going to force the Leafs) may as well serve as one.
This was actually discussed on here a ways back:The NHL bylaws explicitly prohibit any team from playing within the home territory of another team without their consent. The home territory is 50 miles from the city limits where the home arena is located. Since both Hamilton and most of the proposed GTA2 sites are within that home territory, the Leafs absolutely have a veto, even technically.
I live in the GTA it's not the hockey populous it once was. It's actually not much of a hockey town I'd say but much more a leafs town. In the 80s/90s... maybe... now? Nope.
Atlanta vs GTA 2 is absolutely not laughable. You're just bias.
The NHL bylaws explicitly prohibit any team from playing within the home territory of another team without their consent. The home territory is 50 miles from the city limits where the home arena is located. Since both Hamilton and most of the proposed GTA2 sites are within that home territory, the Leafs absolutely have a veto, even technically.
The talent dilution across the league is exactly the same as it is in the upper echelon.
More of a draw in what sense? Atlanta has already proven that the attendance was good for a team that was as atrocious as the Thrashers were (google it). I don't see GTA2 won't be more of a draw on TV - being the NJ devils of Ontario. Nationally I don't see HNIC dropping the leafs for GTA 2.
Call it what you want, a second team here is long overdue.
If you don't think a team in, say, Oakville or Hamilton, would be more of a draw than Thrashers 3.0, then I'm not sure what else to tell you.
As others have mentioned, sure the Leafs might raise an issue but maybe that's why Bell just backed out of the team ownership arrangement they had with Rogers. Maybe soon there will be talk of a Bell-owned franchise popping up elsewhere in Canada, perhaps even nearby.
Relocation is ownership based and current and future financial/economic based. Fans will always say to relocate a smallwr market team which is not doing much in the NHL at the moment to an idealistic big market, but it will rarely ever occurOkay. You can be against expansion and that's fine, that's your prerogative. But if you advocate for relocation specifically, put up or shut up.
This was actually discussed on here a ways back:
Territory Infringement Rights
Where can I find info about territory infringement rights about New Entrants? Like I need to know how close a new team could get to an existing one. Is it different in different places? And what are some of the rules around this? Thanksforums.hfboards.com
How could you possibly make that claim when you're argument for talent dilution across the league was formulaic? Unless you can quantify the upper echelon of players.
How would it not? Why would a 3.1% dilution only affect lower echelon players?