NHL Board of Governors to approve opening of expansion process; Atlanta and Houston believed to be leading candidates

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
29,006
11,224
Not any more teams. Just not what the league needs.
Well, it's going to happen. The NHL would not be going to the BOG if they haven't already done a lot of the due diligence on the applicants. Must be confident enough that they have the Expansion fee money, truly want a team, and have an arena deal ready to go upon receiving the Expansion franchise.

Question is timing. ATL needs a new areana, so at the earliest, they might be ready for 2027-2028 season (2027 ED) if they are awarded a team during 24/25 season and shovels hit the ground in 2025. But, 2028-2029 probably more realistic timeline for them.

Houston, they can begin quicker. If announced during 24/25 season, they can be ready to go for 26/27 (2026 ED) if it's Fertittia. If it is another group, doing what ATL is doing, then it's a similar timeline as ATL.

So, teams better be prepared for an ED as early as 2026 if the HOU bid is from Fertittia.
 

dj4aces

An Intricate Piece of Infinity
Dec 17, 2007
6,537
1,625
Duluth, GA
The talent pool gets diluted…

Fans lose games against historic rivals…playing the teams I grew up hating less often so I can get a 10:00 start against Seattle and Vegas is absolutely horrific.
The talent pool is deeper now than it has ever been, and we could add at least four more teams *today* and it wouldn't take a hit.

Expansion isn't what's making fans see their teams face their historic rivals fewer times a season, it's that the league has -- by their own research -- determined that fans want to see every team play in their buildings at least once per season. If you disagree with their research, I encourage you to reach out and tell them you want more games against your historic rivals.
While Euro footie leagues are shrinking their top flights down to 18, we bloat our pro leagues to meaningless dimensions.
I mean... you know how the Euro football leagues actually work, right? Each nation has their own league, then there's relegation for the unlucky team(s) at the bottom and the UEFA Champion's League too (hint: more than 18 teams). It's comparing apples to bananas.

Is it also about money? Sure, why not? Everyone wants more money. Don't pretend you wouldn't want expansion if you were getting a healthy slice of that $1bn+ fee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cptjeff

Golden_Jet

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
26,014
13,434
The talent pool is deeper now than it has ever been, and we could add at least four more teams *today* and it wouldn't take a hit.

Expansion isn't what's making fans see their teams face their historic rivals fewer times a season, it's that the league has -- by their own research -- determined that fans want to see every team play in their buildings at least once per season. If you disagree with their research, I encourage you to reach out and tell them you want more games against your historic rivals.

I mean... you know how the Euro football leagues actually work, right? Each nation has their own league, then there's relegation for the unlucky team(s) at the bottom and the UEFA Champion's League too (hint: more than 18 teams). It's comparing apples to bananas.

Is it also about money? Sure, why not? Everyone wants more money. Don't pretend you wouldn't want expansion if you were getting a healthy slice of that $1bn+ fee.
100% it’s diluted.

When you lose a quality mid tier player to expansion and have to replace him with a non NHL player.

Expansion rules 7-3-1 or 4-4-1 for protection, it becomes obvious you’re diluting the talent.
 

x Tame Impala

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 24, 2011
28,705
13,716
Expansion means players like Dominik Kubalik wouldn't go overseas. They'd get a roster spot now. That isn't infusing the league with more talent. That's adding more, lesser-talented players to the league
 

dj4aces

An Intricate Piece of Infinity
Dec 17, 2007
6,537
1,625
Duluth, GA
100% it’s diluted.

When you lose a quality mid tier player to expansion and have to replace him with a non NHL player.

Expansion rules 7-3-1 or 4-4-1 for protection, it becomes obvious you’re diluting the talent.
You're looking at it in a single dimension and not accounting for the scores of players in the AHL who are absolutely good enough to slide into the lineup, and possibly even be better than the guy they're replacing. It's pretty simple.

Expansion means players like Dominik Kubalik wouldn't go overseas. They'd get a roster spot now. That isn't infusing the league with more talent. That's adding more, lesser-talented players to the league
The reality is, you hope there's a GM out there who'd try to give Kubalik (or similar type players) a shot, just to prove you right, but unless a GM is in a really bad spot with their roster, I don't see that as very likely.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Golden_Jet

x Tame Impala

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 24, 2011
28,705
13,716
No it isn’t. You guys don’t care about talent dilution. You just want to keep the club exclusive because you’re already in.
Nonsense. I can just as easily say you don't care about the overall product of the league, you just want to be a part of the club.

I have nothing against Atlanta whatsoever
 
  • Like
Reactions: Golden_Jet

LPHabsFan

Registered User
Jul 14, 2003
2,785
1,530
Montreal
Visit site
...therefore Ottawa, Chicago, and Toronto should all have been given up on long before now. Among others.

People were ready to give up on Ottawa and rightfully so. Their economics and fan support was/is horrible and their owner was a POS. Had they moved, I wouldn't have been surprised and it 100% would have been justifiable. They got what Atlanta/Arizona needed; a white knight owner willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars.

Chicago and Toronto? They had shitty owners but they were never losing 10's of millions of dollars per year. Big difference.

Nobody wanted to buy the team because they had no place to play.

Well, the one similar mass development in burbs here in Atlanta is the Battery where the Braves play. So far, in the 6 years it's been around, it's printed money and the team has been top-5 in attendance.

I know they had no place to play. I said that in my post. But if there's a will, there's a way. I'm sure that if there was an owner ready to step in and get things done, they would have figured out a way to keep them in Atlanta just like they did with Arizona. But they didn't.

The Atlanta Spirit group featured one of Turner's sons as a part-owner, which had a thing or two to do with why Turner Broadcasting broke a verbal agreement they had in place with David McDavid to sell the Thrashers, Hawks, and Philips Arena to him, Now, prior to that agreement, Atlanta Spirit didn't want the Thrashers, but when it was announced that there was an agreement in place, they convinced Turner Broadcasting to sell to them instead by offering to take the Thrashers.

Once the purchase was complete, Atlanta Spirit *immediately* began trying to sell the Thrashers for relocation. A trade the Hawks made, however, put a damper on that as the majority owner (Steve Belkin) disagreed with it and walked away, filing a lawsuit for control of the assets on his way out. As the ownership of the Thrashers was then in question at that point, no one had any rights to sell it to anyone else.

Once the almost six year legal battle came to an end though, the race was on to sell. There were a lot of local suitors lining up to take a crack at buying the team, but it all fell apart when they got to the whole "negotiating a lease" part. Why, you might ask? Because they were predatory, leases that no one in their right mind would pay, that even if an ownership group was desperate to keep the team in town and were willing to legitimately *pay anything* to do so, they still wouldn't pay the lease. And Atlanta Spirit could do it too, because Philips was the only NHL rink in town. Yeah, there's the building here in Duluth, but that's a whole other can of worms, and the league probably wouldn't have allowed it to be used until a new building was constructed.

So no... at least in terms of Atlanta, your paragraph is empirically false. Furthermore, I know you've seen this story before, so you should know better.
The NHL had various ways they could have stopped the sale to ASG from happening to keep the team in Atlanta. Would it have been a good situation? Absolutely not. Would it have kept the team in Atlanta? Yes. You even mention there being another arena they could have used while an arena was being built. Even without knowing the state of the arena, we've seen over the decades that the NHL would be willing to accept lower short term standards so long as the longer term solution was in the process of getting done. The suitors who lined up wanted to have their cake and eat it too by getting the team for a song and keeping them at Philipps.

So why didn't anybody, or the league, step up to the plate? Because they knew it wasn't worth it then, just like it won't be worth it long term when the new team arrives.
 

Golden_Jet

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
26,014
13,434
You're looking at it in a single dimension and not accounting for the scores of players in the AHL who are absolutely good enough to slide into the lineup, and possibly even be better than the guy they're replacing. It's pretty simple.
Funny guy, Senators had to replace Karlsson’s partner Marc Methot with Ben Harpur. Every team loses a better player, than they replace them with, unless they get a UFA with the cash saved. (Which just means someone else has to dip into AHL.)

There’s no debate to be had, expansion dilutes.
Have a good day, no use continuing this.
 

genk

Registered User
Nov 15, 2015
632
1,061
Poor Quebec. NHL really doesnt care to go back there.

If their government weren't so ass-backwards and regressive with language, the NHL would probably already be there. It costs companies so much more money to translate literally everything to French, including the company's own name, if they want to operate in Quebec. Don't feel bad for them. They're doing it to themselves. Montreal is the exception because they've been operating in Quebec for so long, there's a carveout in their agreements to exempt them from the new language laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reality Czech

KeydGV21

Registered User
Jul 25, 2006
1,985
412
The talent pool is deeper now than it has ever been, and we could add at least four more teams *today* and it wouldn't take a hit.

Expansion isn't what's making fans see their teams face their historic rivals fewer times a season, it's that the league has -- by their own research -- determined that fans want to see every team play in their buildings at least once per season. If you disagree with their research, I encourage you to reach out and tell them you want more games against your historic rivals.

I mean... you know how the Euro football leagues actually work, right? Each nation has their own league, then there's relegation for the unlucky team(s) at the bottom and the UEFA Champion's League too (hint: more than 18 teams). It's comparing apples to bananas.

Is it also about money? Sure, why not? Everyone wants more money. Don't pretend you wouldn't want expansion if you were getting a healthy slice of that $1bn+ fee.
We could add 100 players to the league and the average level of talent wouldn’t change?

Thanks for starting with that, because that’s where I stopped reading
 

Three On Zero

HF Designated Parking Instructor
Sponsor
Oct 9, 2012
32,489
31,413
Poor Quebec. NHL really doesnt care to go back there.
It’s unfortunate, but i don’t see it as a long term viable option. Politically it’s a very “different” market, let’s just leave it at that.
 

Golden_Jet

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
26,014
13,434
We could add 100 players to the league and the average level of talent wouldn’t change?

Thanks for starting with that, because that’s where I stopped reading
Imagine removing 4 players off your roster and thinking replacing them with 4 non NHLers, and the talent on your team doesn’t change. Strictly hyperbole.
 

x Tame Impala

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 24, 2011
28,705
13,716
Imagine removing 4 players off your roster and thinking replacing them with 4 non NHLers, and the talent on your team doesn’t change. Strictly hyperbole.
No you see, you just resupply your squad with draft picks, prospects, and AHLers and the problem is solved. These talented players already exist and just need a chance to shine.

:sarcasm:
 

dj4aces

An Intricate Piece of Infinity
Dec 17, 2007
6,537
1,625
Duluth, GA
Funny guy, Senators had to replace Karlsson’s partner Marc Methot with Ben Harpur. Every team loses a better player, than they replace them with, unless they get a UFA with the cash saved. (Which just means someone else has to dip into AHL.)
Who was their GM again, I wonder? Was it the guy who famously proclaimed "the rebuild is over", only to see his team sink to the bottom of the standings like a boat anchor? Yeah, I thought so.

Imagine removing 4 players off your roster and thinking replacing them with 4 non NHLers, and the talent on your team doesn’t change. Strictly hyperbole.
Imagine having a GM that is so bad at asset management and drafting that they wouldn't have any decent prospects in the cupboard to fill the missing spots.

This is a fun game.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Golden_Jet

Golden_Jet

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
26,014
13,434
No you see, you just resupply your squad with draft picks, prospects, and AHLers and the problem is solved. These talented players already exist and just need a chance to shine.

:sarcasm:
Ya it’s just so simple, the hyberbole from that poster is entertaining at least, especially if you haven’t laughed today.
 

tucker3434

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 7, 2007
20,294
11,352
Atlanta, GA
Nonsense. I can just as easily say you don't care about the overall product of the league, you just want to be a part of the club.

I have nothing against Atlanta whatsoever

The game adapts. It always has. It always will.

Should we add 10 teams at once? No. Trickling a team in every 5 years over the next 20? Not a noticeable difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dj4aces

dj4aces

An Intricate Piece of Infinity
Dec 17, 2007
6,537
1,625
Duluth, GA
No you see, you just resupply your squad with draft picks, prospects, and AHLers and the problem is solved. These talented players already exist and just need a chance to shine.

:sarcasm:
That's ... typically how things go. But it's fine.

I will freely admit that I'm not the smartest person in the room. However, I do tend to listen to those who are.

So, let's approach this from another direction, shall we? What makes you or some other posters think the talent pool is already too diluted to expand again? Are Bill Daly, Gary Bettman, and others wrong when they say the talent pool is fine and one could add a number of new teams and not see a problem? How so?

You guys wanna convince me that this isn't about gatekeeping and is about actual demonstrable talent dilution? Now's your chance.

Difficulty: Don't cite bad moves by bad GMs. That's already been tried, and it didn't work.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Golden_Jet

Three On Zero

HF Designated Parking Instructor
Sponsor
Oct 9, 2012
32,489
31,413
That's ... typically how things go. But it's fine.

I will freely admit that I'm not the smartest person in the room. However, I do tend to listen to those who are.

So, let's approach this from another direction, shall we? What makes you or some other posters think the talent pool is already too diluted to expand again? Are Bill Daly, Gary Bettman, and others wrong when they say the talent pool is fine and one could add a number of new teams and not see a problem? How so?

You guys wanna convince me that this isn't about gatekeeping and is about actual demonstrable talent dilution? Now's your chance.

Difficulty: Don't cite bad moves by bad GMs. That's already been tried, and it didn't work.
People used that logic with Vegas, it was proven wrong. People again tried that logic with Seattle and again, they were proven wrong. Talent dilution really is not an issue at this point for the NHL.

Now if they added 4 teams at once it might take a hit for a couple seasons but it won’t be a long term detriment to the league
 

BlueSeal

Believe In The Note
Dec 1, 2013
7,602
6,838
Out West
Let he or she who would take a team away from fans first volunteer his or her own. No exceptions whatsoever; it doesn't matter who you cheer for - you want to play that game, you offer yours up first. Have the guts to take the hit yourself rather than demanding that others suffer for your entertainment.
Glad you see it my way! So let's not add anymore teams, right? Riiight?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad