NHL Expansion back on agenda?

[StreetHawk]

I like the Thrashers name but I never really jived with their logo and jerseys. 100% willing to see a rebrand though using the Thrashers name.

The white jerseys were fine.

But, they opted for blue jerseys with the secondary logo (looked like a logo for one of Batman's sidekick's). The background of the main logo was blue, so made more sense to have red jerseys for it to pop on the dark jersey.

 

[KevFu]

I think the idea that they're expanding again so quickly is insane. Bush league behavior

"So quickly" is funny considering they added nine franchises (and 14 new markets) in a span of like 12 years in the 1990s.

The stage NHL expansion is in right now is roughly the same as it was when we had threads about "The NHL is going to 32 after the CBA is settled!" And the Kraken took the ice NINE YEARS LATER.

You're right that "sudden rapid expansion is bad." But that's why you're always better off adding one team every 6 years than dropping six teams at once every 36 years.

At least an effort was made in Atlanta and Phoenix. But in some respects it's wild that the NHL has never tried Houston even in spite of the relative success that the Stars have enjoyed in that region.

That's all the history of backroom dealing in sports expansion attempt history. Which I find fascinating.

The short version is: Houston knew they needed a new NBA/NHL arena but were waiting to see whom they needed to include in negotiations; because three different groups in Houston put in bids for an NHL expansion team. And the NHL wasn't giving a team without an arena plan in place, so they rejected all three bids. Houston worked an arena deal with the NBA owner that said they wouldn't allow for a competing arena, so the NBA is the only guy who can bring an NHL team to Houston. The NBA owner (both of them over time) have never wanted to pay full price.

 

[KevFu]

Respectfully agree to disagree. The Thrashers name was silly to begin with (small harmless songbird) and sounds very dated in 2024. The brand was totally ruined by ownership, notwithstanding some nostalgia, and reeks of a '90's focus group attempt to sound hip and cool.

Go with something new, and classic.

Totally valid opinion to have. But like I said, you're dividing the popular opinion of your brand more ways if you don't bring back the old.

"I wish they did something different and awesome" is totally open ended, but they could unveil something that's universally terrible. That's hard enough with a new team, but you don't want all the headlines about your new "Atlanta FreshBrands" to be all "What was wrong with the Thrashers?"

"The Thrashers sound so 1990s" but 50 years from now, what's gonna sound "so 2030s" ?


Personally, I'd go Thrashers nickname but with a new look; and then use a throwback as an alternate, and bust them out for non-marquee games you need to boost ticket sales to.

The white jerseys were fine.

But, they opted for blue jerseys with the secondary logo (looked like a logo for one of Batman's sidekick's). The background of the main logo was blue, so made more sense to have red jerseys for it to pop on the dark jersey.

What I never understood was why they went with their color scheme. I thought the same red the Falcons, Hawks, Braves and Georgia Bulldogs use; black, and gold like Georgia Tech (and now United) would have made a better look. I posted a photoshop of the Thrashers logo with those colors and got positive feedback.

Like I said, they could go with Atlanta Thrashers but a whole new look; and use the 1990s stuff as alternates. Each year bust out a new Throwback.

 

[nhlfan79]

Totally valid opinion to have. But like I said, you're dividing the popular opinion of your brand more ways if you don't bring back the old.

"I wish they did something different and awesome" is totally open ended, but they could unveil something that's universally terrible. That's hard enough with a new team, but you don't want all the headlines about your new "Atlanta FreshBrands" to be all "What was wrong with the Thrashers?"

"The Thrashers sound so 1990s" but 50 years from now, what's gonna sound "so 2030s" ?

Personally, I'd go Thrashers nickname but with a new look; and then use a throwback as an alternate, and bust them out for non-marquee games you need to boost ticket sales to.

What I never understood was why they went with their color scheme. I thought the same red the Falcons, Hawks, Braves and Georgia Bulldogs use; black, and gold like Georgia Tech (and now United) would have made a better look. I posted a photoshop of the Thrashers logo with those colors and got positive feedback.

Like I said, they could go with Atlanta Thrashers but a whole new look; and use the 1990s stuff as alternates. Each year bust out a new Throwback.

I understand your point, but I was born here and have lived here my whole life. I get zero sense that there's any sort of local groundswell consensus among the people who know that the NHL is (likely) returning that the new team should be the Thrashers. And that's among the group of people most eager for the league's return. For the greater Atlanta population as a whole, they have zero opinion either way, to the extent that they are even aware that a team may be arriving in the coming years. That's the untapped market they'll be trying to reach.

In truth, I think the Thrashers brand is highly divisive, primarily by age. If you're younger (30s-40s), you may remember it more fondly because, 20-25 years ago, you were taken to games as a kid by paying parents, so there's the nostalgia element. If you're a touch older and were actually paying the freight while getting kicked in the nards over and over again by Atlanta Spirit, you certainly have a different perspective. You'd rightly think that the brand and name is now toxic for all of the well-documented reasons, and that there's huge value in signaling to the market that this opportunity is entirely new and has no ties whatsoever to the people who killed the last franchise in bad faith.

Why did they not use similar colors to the other established local teams? Beats me. Maybe for the same reason they intentionally refused the assistance of the former Atlanta Flames alumni who still lived in the area. They never made any effort to cultivate the existing hockey history here.

 

[dj4aces]

In truth, I think the Thrashers brand is highly divisive, primarily by age. If you're younger (30s-40s), you may remember it more fondly because, 20-25 years ago, you were taken to games as a kid by paying parents, so there's the nostalgia element. If you're a touch older and were actually paying the freight while getting kicked in the nards over and over again by Atlanta Spirit, you certainly have a different perspective.

I'm 44. I turned 17 the day after expansion was announced, and was 19 on opening night... but I couldn't afford tickets to my first game here until I was 23. While age-wise, I fall into that first category, life was pretty chaotic, so I definitely did my fair share of paying. That may go some length to illustrate why I feel the way I do about the Thrashers name being re-used. In the end though, it's not my decision (I would personally hold a vote), it'll be the prospective owner who decides. If "Thrashers" are re-born, so be it... but something different would be welcome.

Just my two cents.

 

[nhlfan79]

I'm 44.

I think I'm the perfect case-in-point. I just turned 51. My parents took me to Flames games as a small kid, so I have deep nostalgia for that team even today. In 1999, I was 26, just starting my first "real" job post-law school, and was a paying customer for the first time. I have radically different (bitter) feelings about that franchise.

But maybe it's not about age. I just asked my 20-year-old son, who went to tons of Thrashers games at the same age I was when I went to Flames games, and he said he would prefer a fresh start because Thrashers has a lot of "bad mojo."

So, maybe my feelings are based to some degree on the circumstances of each leaving. The Flames were doing OK, but the owner got into a personal financial bind and accepted a record offer that no one in their right mind would refuse, despite other interested local buyers. The Thrashers were systematically gutted over the course of several years with the specific design and intent to force their relocation.

 

[dj4aces]

I think I'm the perfect case-in-point. I just turned 51. My parents took me to Flames games as a small kid, so I have deep nostalgia for that team even today. In 1999, I was 26, just starting my first "real" job post-law school, and was a paying customer for the first time. I have radically different (bitter) feelings about that franchise.

But maybe it's not about age. I just asked my 20-year-old son, who went to tons of Thrashers games at the same age I was when I went to Flames games, and he said he would prefer a fresh start because Thrashers has a lot of "bad mojo."

So, maybe my feelings are based to some degree on the circumstances of each leaving. The Flames were doing OK, but the owner got into a personal financial bind and accepted a record offer that no one in their right mind would refuse, despite other interested local buyers. The Thrashers were systematically gutted over the course of several years with the specific design and intent to force their relocation.

I think there's a lot of folks in town who do feel a sense of nostalgia for the name. Back in the summer, I was walking around downtown with my girlfriend when a group of folks recognized my Wings hat and held up their shirts, emblazoned with the late-2000s Thrashers logo, and yelled out "Go Thrashers". I know there's a number of folks from outside markets who feel a sense of fondness for the name and/or uniform, too. One of the podcasts I listen to has a guy who isn't exactly a fan of Atlanta coming back to the league, but loves the idea of the Thrashers jerseys coming back.

I definitely understand where some folks feel a deeper connection to the name. This would be especially true of the folks who were children when the Thrashers were here, probably have more memories of guys like Burmistrov, Bogosian, and E. Kane than they do of Kovalchuk and Hossa, and maybe even continued to follow the team after they moved to Winnipeg... and in my view, that's perfectly valid.

There needs to be a level of caution taken with reviving the Thrashers brand. Whoever owns the franchise will have plenty of time to make that decision, as a new building will take 2-3 years to construct, so I think we all have to have faith that they'll make the right decision. If that turns out to be Thrashers, so be it.

 

[Melrose Munch]

you guys are old

 

[dj4aces]

you guys are old

I'm not old, I'm experienced!

 

[GreenHornet]

I'm not old, I'm experienced!

Jeez! If @Melrose Munch thinks YOU'RE old, that makes me positively ancient.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

Jeez! If @Melrose Munch thinks YOU'RE old, that makes me positively ancient.

Heck, they carbon date me to see how old I am.

 

[ManByng]

Yes I agree that a team in Atlanta should come back but for the love of GOD make sure there’s a proper arena available or built and do this properly!! Also I’d like to see KC and QC come back and a new team in Houston wouldn’t be a bad thing either!!

 

[RBH]

New interview with Vernon Krause regarding Atlanta/NHL:

 

[StreetHawk]

Yes I agree that a team in Atlanta should come back but for the love of GOD make sure there’s a proper arena available or built and do this properly!! Also I’d like to see KC and QC come back and a new team in Houston wouldn’t be a bad thing either!!

The prior arena was fine. Whether the location was ideal seems to be the debate.
But, that was something that needed to be figured out well in advance since ATL was awarded a team in the mid 90's and it opened in 1999.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

It's time to abandon the current conference/division alignment, as I have proposed expansion to 40 teams aligned as such (expansion teams marked with *):

Central: Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Indianapolis*, Kansas City*, Milwaukee*, Minnesota, St. Louis

East: Boston, Buffalo, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington

North: Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec*, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg

South: Atlanta*, Carolina, Dallas, Florida, Houston*, Nashville, New Orleans*, Tampa Bay

West: Anaheim, Arizona*, Colorado, Los Angeles, San Jose, Seattle, Utah, Vegas

(note: I have proposed the new Arizona franchise inherit the history of the Coyotes from 1996 to 2024, with the Jets 1.0 history, including WHA years, being transferred to Jets 2.0)

The regular season schedule format would see each team play 50 division games, 7 against 6 opponents and 8 against the other one. Division matchups that get played 8 times would rotate every year. All non-division games get played once, alternating home ice every year.

For the playoffs, the top four teams in each division qualify. The American teams would stage their playoffs until each division has crowned a playoff champion. At that point the North Division starts their playoffs to determine one bid in the Stanley Cup Finals, while the remaining American teams are re-seeded and play for the other spot in the Stanley Cup Finals.

This would not only guarantee a Canadian team a spot in the Finals, but avoid a situation like 2016 where no Canadian team qualified.

Quite frankly, after over 30 years without a Canadian Cup winner, Canadian media companies should demand the implementation of this if the NHL wants to continue to have a national TV presence in the nation (regional broadcasts would be unaffected). Keep in mind that when the NHL was founded in 1917, there were only Canadian teams, and thus at least one participant in the Cup Finals every year (back when it was a multi-league competition) was guaranteed to be from Canada. And I think Bell, the CBC, Corus, and Rogers will be very good at playing hardball with the NHL when the time comes.

 

[dj4aces]

If I recall correctly, one of the bidders in the 1990s to bring the NHL back to Atlanta included the owner of the Atlanta Knights, who had the data necessary to show that the place for the NHL 2.0 was near the current location of Truist Park today. So really, it was figured out in the 90s. The league instead chose to go with Ted Turner, who was replacing The Omni with Philips Arena.

I imagine part of the concern by the league would be whether he could secure the land and get a barn erected, while another concern being that the team wouldn't be downtown. Based on what they thought they knew in the 1990s, not unfounded concerns. To me though, it sounds like the league knows better now.

 

[aqib]

I'll accept Phoenix or Firebird, nothing else.

At one point after the Cardinals left St Louis the name Phoenix was considered as a potential name for a St Louis expansion team.

 

[StreetHawk]

If I recall correctly, one of the bidders in the 1990s to bring the NHL back to Atlanta included the owner of the Atlanta Knights, who had the data necessary to show that the place for the NHL 2.0 was near the current location of Truist Park today. So really, it was figured out in the 90s. The league instead chose to go with Ted Turner, who was replacing The Omni with Philips Arena.

I imagine part of the concern by the league would be whether he could secure the land and get a barn erected, while another concern being that the team wouldn't be downtown. Based on what they thought they knew in the 1990s, not unfounded concerns. To me though, it sounds like the league knows better now.

NHL in the mid 90's learned from their 5 expansions in the early 90's that they didn't want any new club coming in without an arena deal signed and sealed. SJ, Ott, TB, and FLA all moved into new arenas after they arrived. Only Ana is still playing out of their original arena.

Houston had 3 bids but an arena deal couldn't be ironed out. Weird situation in that the NHL wanted the city to narrow it down whereas the city wanted the NHL to pick the bid. In any case, city would need to involve Les Alexander, the Rockets owner. So, was a matter of whether it was just him or another party as well.

So, this second ATL bid, did they have the financing and approval for a new arena? If not, then not surprised the NHL went with the locked in arena that Turner had for the Hawks and NHL team. Plus, it was Ted Turner who owned a media company, which the NHL would have thought would be good for business.

 

[Golden_Jet]

It's time to abandon the current conference/division alignment, as I have proposed expansion to 40 teams aligned as such (expansion teams marked with *):

Central: Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Indianapolis*, Kansas City*, Milwaukee*, Minnesota, St. Louis

East: Boston, Buffalo, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington

North: Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec*, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg

South: Atlanta*, Carolina, Dallas, Florida, Houston*, Nashville, New Orleans*, Tampa Bay

West: Anaheim, Arizona*, Colorado, Los Angeles, San Jose, Seattle, Utah, Vegas

(note: I have proposed the new Arizona franchise inherit the history of the Coyotes from 1996 to 2024, with the Jets 1.0 history, including WHA years, being transferred to Jets 2.0)

The regular season schedule format would see each team play 50 division games, 7 against 6 opponents and 8 against the other one. Division matchups that get played 8 times would rotate every year. All non-division games get played once, alternating home ice every year.

For the playoffs, the top four teams in each division qualify. The American teams would stage their playoffs until each division has crowned a playoff champion. At that point the North Division starts their playoffs to determine one bid in the Stanley Cup Finals, while the remaining American teams are re-seeded and play for the other spot in the Stanley Cup Finals.

This would not only guarantee a Canadian team a spot in the Finals, but avoid a situation like 2016 where no Canadian team qualified.

Quite frankly, after over 30 years without a Canadian Cup winner, Canadian media companies should demand the implementation of this if the NHL wants to continue to have a national TV presence in the nation (regional broadcasts would be unaffected). Keep in mind that when the NHL was founded in 1917, there were only Canadian teams, and thus at least one participant in the Cup Finals every year (back when it was a multi-league competition) was guaranteed to be from Canada. And I think Bell, the CBC, Corus, and Rogers will be very good at playing hardball with the NHL when the time comes.

You were told a year ago by numerous posters, it’s a terrible idea, and still is. There is zero chance of a North division, it was awful during Covid, half the people can’t stay up to watch 1/3 of the games.

Ask Bruins fans, Rangers fans etc if they want to be in a division with LA, SJ and Anaheim.

40 teams, ya not happening either.

 

[StreetHawk]

You were told a year ago by numerous posters, it’s a terrible idea, and still is. There is zero chance of a North division, it was awful during Covid, half the people can’t stay up to watch 1/3 of the games.

Ask Bruins fans, Rangers fans etc if they want to be in a division with LA, SJ and Anaheim.

40 teams, ya not happening either.

Some posters only think Regular Season. But, whatever RS setup you have, you then need to decide how to do the PO setup.

Have to consider TV commitments and arena availability. Not to mention travel.

NHL will continue to group teams by location.

 

[GreenHornet]

So, this second ATL bid, did they have the financing and approval for a new arena? If not, then not surprised the NHL went with the locked in arena that Turner had for the Hawks and NHL team. Plus, it was Ted Turner who owned a media company, which the NHL would have thought would be good for business.

Here's what I remember and how it relates to the current situation.

The arena proposal by Atlanta Knights co-owners Richard Adler and David Berkman that @dj4aces referred to was called Royal 400 (named after Georgia Highway 400, an expressway that heads from Atlanta up to the northern exurbs, and which both current arena proposals are now centered around).

They definitely had financing put together and had a press conference revealing artists renderings for the arena, as well as a proposed amphitheater that eventually was built. The latter is now called the Ameris Bank Amphitheater, and it's a stone's throw away from North Point Mall, which coincidentally (or not) is the site that Anson Carter's group wants to now build its arena (Vernon Krause's Gathering at South Forsyth is a mere six miles north of that).

Now, I'm not quite as certain as to what the status was with the local politicians at the time. What I described above all started while the Knights were still in existence in the old IHL. By the time progress was being made along those lines (some two years later), plans went forward with demolishing The Omni to build what is now State Farm Arena, and the Knights no longer had a place to play (the Gwinnett Arena wouldn't be completed for another 5 of 6 years). The owners moved that team to Quebec City (to become the IHL the Rafales until the IHL folded a few years later), and began to focus on the NHL.

By the time the expansion process officially began, I had moved to Louisiana and didn't return to Atlanta until after the Thrashers' second season in the NHL. So, I'm not sure exactly how they proceeded on their bid. I think they still were working on building the Royal 400 project, at least until the city began making plans for the new arena, but I'm not certain about that. In any event, I have to think that it wouldn't have mattered where Adler and Berkman were planning on playing. I have to think Bettman and the BoG saw Turner's money and were always going to go with him.

 

[nhlfan79]

In any event, I have to think that it wouldn't have mattered where Adler and Berkman were planning on playing. I have to think Bettman and the BoG saw Turner's money and were always going to go with him.

That's an outstanding summary of how it all evolved. And you also included your own TL;DR. Nice.