DopeyFish
Mitchy McDangles
- Nov 17, 2009
- 6,685
- 4,819
Most likely is Quebec. They have everything already ready down to the TV rights. Quebecor was very smart in their readiness plan.
NHL Making Contingency Plans for Arena-less Coyotes? (All Relo Speculation Here)
- Thread starter Fugu
- Start date
- Status
Most likely is Quebec. They have everything already ready down to the TV rights. Quebecor was very smart in their readiness plan.
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
QC throws a wrench in things more than it should. There are four potential cities for teams. Three west, one east.
Quebec City
Las Vegas
Portland
Seattle
There are three teams with the potential to move. One west, two east.
Arizona
Florida
Carolina
There are options for expansion.
There's a million ways this can all go down, including none of the moving teams moving. However, as this is a thread for the plans if Arizona moves, let's assume they're moving.
In all the possible scenarios, there are very few/no circumstances under which it makes sense to move a current western team to the east if there are cities in the west that are suitable and some semblance of conference balance is a concern.
If balance doesn't matter, move the team to QC, they're ready.
I think it does matter at least a little, and again, it makes little sense to further unbalance the conferences or realign current teams to facilitate a QC move when expansion is an option and there are two potential eastern movers.
If the Arizona situation happened in Florida today, I think QC is a lock and it's done. I think QC is the 3rd best option for Arizona, though.
Seattle was 1 no vote away from getting the coyotes in 2013. There are plans being worked on for a NHL arena for a team in Tukwila, washington then there is the issues with milwaukee and they could relocate to Seattle taking care of the team issue for sodo arena.
If NHL had no choice and they rather not make the league more unbalanced they would give it to Seattle (more leverage to get NHL first deal done for sodo)
If coyotes to Vegas who's going to be Seattle expansion partner (no its not going to be quebec due to inbalance problems). Portland isn't going to give NHL a good to high expansion fee.
Sorry i do not see the NHL wanting to make the league more lopsided by taking away a western conference team and relocating it to a eastern time zone city.
If NHL had no choice and they rather not make the league more unbalanced they would give it to Seattle (more leverage to get NHL first deal done for sodo)
If coyotes to Vegas who's going to be Seattle expansion partner (no its not going to be quebec due to inbalance problems). Portland isn't going to give NHL a good to high expansion fee.
Sorry i do not see the NHL wanting to make the league more lopsided by taking away a western conference team and relocating it to a eastern time zone city.
Last edited:
Winnipeg played in the south east and if quebec was in the west they would gladly bear the brunt of increased travel costs.
Trying to even out east west off the jump when the stability of other teams is suspect is a fools errand. Quebec can play in the west for a couple of years till the stability/expansion issues are sorted out.
How about Atlanta?? Maybe Toronto, they need an NHL team. I don't think Hamiltons building is NHL level without serious upgrades.
Then how are you going to get Quebec out of the western conference there lies the issue. It could be 3-4 years or longer before a eastern conference team has to move.
Winnipeg playing in the south east was temporary till they realigned the league which moved Winnipeg to western conference and detroit + columbus to the eastern conference.
There is no realignment plan right now that would work that would take a eastern team and place them in the western conference (detroit and Columbus aren't moving back)
Bettman has said in the past they do not want to add another eastern time zone team. 13/17 is not going to happen.
Tom ServoMST3K
In search of a Steinbach Hero
I don't see 13 western conference teams agreeing to that when there are better options that would have the team stay put in the same division.
y2kcanucks
Better than you
And what options might those be? The rundown Key arena that's not suitable for hockey? A backyard ice rink in Alberta?
If the choice is quebec in the west or a far less ready team in the west ( portland/seattle/las vegas) for ONCE go for the sure thing. It will all work out, teams on the east rumored to be on shaky ground could move westward.
This idea that we have to coddle geography is nonsense, fcs detroit played in the west for a long time. They could be incentivised to go back ( big money) or Columbus could be shifted.
Of all the choices, there is but one choice who will go against geography for as long as it takes, Quebec. There was a time ( with trains) for an east west discriminatory, it's not needed anymore as expansion in no longer east west but north south
JJ McCubbin
Registered User
- Apr 15, 2014
- 477
- 29
QC to the Central and Colorado to the Pacific would be the best bet if the Coyotes move to Quebec. Portland might be the best option though if they are the least likely of Portland/Seattle/LV/QC to stump up a big expansion fee.
NHL was willing to move the coyotes to Seattle to play in key arena for 3 years had Glendale said no in 2013. It was assumed if that were to happen a new arena would have gotten done in Seattle.
I see it being Portland, Vegas, Seattle, Quebec in order if the team has to relocate to another city out side of Arizona.
Based on what Paul Allen said regarding to cost of the franchise, Portland will not fetch the NHL a high expansion fee.
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
I think there's only really three options right now. Vegas, Portland and QC. Seattle needs an arena, and I don't think you give a place a team to get an arena done when there's options that already have one. Portland doesn't want to pay, QC and LV are open to it.
I love Seattle, it's my favorite city in the US, but it's not so valuable or such a slam dunk that you put a team there with an arena on the come. I just don't see it. Maybe a few years ago when QC was still QC, Portland wants a deal, Houston doesn't want a team, Kansas City didn't have an owner and is happier with Taylor Swift concerts anyways, and there wasn't any other move.
There are options now. Portland is still Portland, Houston still doesn't care, Kansas City still likes Taylor Swift and college basketball, Seattle still doesn't have an arena, and Vegas has proved it's ready by jumping through hoops no other city would have to jump through and doing that feat quickly.
I see Seattle as the 4th best known interested option as we sit in our seats today.
Portland -Ready to go with if they'll pay.
Vegas -Ready to go in a year, will pay, has a temporary venue until the new place is done.
QC -Ready to go, still in the east.
Seattle -Needs an arena, no real viable temporary spot.
GindyDraws
#HutchOut
I know it's a long shot, but what about Houston? The owner of the Rockets has always been adamant about wanting an NHL team, which was why the Aeros got kicked out. I wouldn't want to reward the guy, per se, but I want Houston hockey so badly.
And division realignment would be easy; you swap Houston for Colorado.
And division realignment would be easy; you swap Houston for Colorado.
Cacciaguida
Registered User
Considering that Seattle almost got the Coyotes a couple years ago, I would find it hard to believe that they wouldn't at least be considered. Whether they actually end up in Seattle is a different story.
wunderpanda
Registered User
- Apr 9, 2012
- 5,604
- 591
What city would accept the team with the current owners tho? QC makes sense only if they buy the Yotes, Vegas has an ownership group as well. Seattle has no arena and 2 competing plans. Portland makes sense, but they won't be handing out subsidies. Mechanics of this seem complicated, even if they move to Suns arena without the 15 million subsidy, it would support Glendales stance that the AMF was a scam deal.
Houston is a no go. You would have to involve Rocket's owner to even have a shot at the use Houston's arena.
So you would prefer the team play in a dump ( didn't they say key needs more than a year for renovations) got several years as the Hansen deal might go through or titillating gets built. A very much untested.market compared to QC where they will be whistle ready in a couple of months?
Then carolina/florida sorts itself out and mabey expansion then you realign again?
There is but one place guaranteed to succeed and more than willing to play 3,4,5 years in the wrong conference. And it ain't seattle
It was assumed had the coyotes moved to seattle in 2013 that a new arena would gotten figure out with just a NHL team.
I don't think the NHL wants a team in quebec if they are going to have to be in the western conference conference for the next half a decade or longer.
NHL has played in worse arenas than Key arena as temporary facility that is not a problem. If they were willing to play 3 years in key arena two years ago then they won't have a problem today.
I think they would try to put the team in Seattle again under similar arrangements that would have moved the team to Seattle 2 years ago before they look at relocating them to Quebec.
Hansen would be interested in NHL first if he got a partner - in theory, enter the current Coyotes ownership group.
Why would the nhl care? The diques could birch about travel but won't, they will be happy to be in my matter the cost.
If the nhl is worried about anything its not having a musical chairs situation and once a team lands in QC, it's there for good.
The mere Longshot opportunity ( however far fetvhed) of a qc/mtl scf would be enough to keep scores warm at night.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
No they werent
The two main groups in Seattle have done a great job in given the impression they have nearly had the Phoenix team a few times--all the media leaks have come from the seattle group and their attempt to get a team
The Seattle arena plane clearly has an NBA first clause and awhile ago the question was asked "what if an nhl team was moved to Seattle?"--The NBA clause needs to be met first before the NHL goes to Seattle--untill Seattle changes the wording of the funding for the arena and a few other things--Seattle is quite a ways away from having an arena.
The two bidders are convinced and have convinced their supporters and KOMO and King 5 that if they get a relocated team--the Seattle City council will reword the NBA clause for the new Arean--so far the council is unmoved on that subject
The mou for public finding ( which I assume he needs) is still nba first, is it not?
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
I agree that Seattle is above QC for the stupid geography reasons. However, there is now a viable Vegas and the potential for expansion in the future and neither of those things were "real" options two years ago.
- Status
