Talent pool is secondary. Having a secure arena long term and an owner with a long term plan is key. You could have a Boston Bruins or Vancouver Canuck type roster and if the owner of the the arena and teams says they gotta go--they gotta go.. There is a reason why the NHL had to look around and see what owner, city, and arena was good to go. I know there was several phone calls made and only the peg was able to do everything was done on such short notice. I think if the jet owner knew that he would get a team so quickly? HE would have built a bigger arena with more bells and whistles
NHL to Atlanta odds just increased significantly
- Thread starter FlyguyOX
- Start date
- Status
The vote is merely a formality.
The county said they would not subsidize the arena/development without a guarantee of an NHL team being there, the owner/owner group visits the NHL in New York, tours new NYI arena, a week later the county approves the subsidizing of the development.
Connect the dots. The county wouldn't give almost 400 million for merely a chance.
You described all of the same problems people would have getting downtown, except the traffic is worse downtown.
It’s clear where the population is exploding in Atlanta, and that’s the north side of town. It’s a great time to buy property in southern Forsyth county.
Moved from Smyrna/walking distance to the Braves to South Forsyth early last year
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
Seriously?
They will have ZERO problems retaining season ticket holders with that location. If anything, it will drive more people to become season tix holders.
Mimicking the battery set up is a brilliant move.
MuckOG
Registered User
- May 18, 2012
- 15,709
- 5,718
Because if the NHL expands to ATL, in order to maintain balance between the East and West, the NHL will also need another expansion team in the West. Two more teams, means another 46 players added to the league who aren't already there.
Are you honestly going to sit there are tell me that there are 46 additional players of high quality and skill that are just sitting out there and unable to play because there aren't enough teams? All you need to do is look at every team's roster and you can find 2-3 players that just don't belong in the league and wouldn't be there if better options available. Expanding the league further, means teams will have to reach even deeper to find guys to fill out their rosters. The talent will be further diluted and the quality of play will suffer as a result.
Last edited:
dj4aces
An Intricate Piece of Infinity
I'm really not sure what this has to do with the comment I responded to, the one who dragged out a dwindling talent pool from the archives and dropped it at our feet like a dog bringing us yet another dead squirrel they found in the middle of the road. But sure, I'll bite.
While none of us really know much about Krause, other than his goal is to woo the NHL back to metro Atlanta, the fact is that one wouldn't pay $2bn for an arena and mixed-use development, and an additional $1bn for a franchise, just to kick it out of the building they're operating and having it move to Halifax, Omaha, or Fargo.
If you look back at the history of the last Thrashers ownership, you'll find two things. First, they were basketball guys. All they wanted was the Hawks. They stated as much when buying the properties from Turner, and did their absolute best to acquire the Hawks and Philips without the Thrashers. When that failed, they tried to sell the Thrashers for purposes of relocation (see: King & Spalding vs. Atlanta Spirit LLC) in the summer of 2005. Those folks really didn't want hockey in their building, or in Atlanta in general. They saw the Thrashers as competing against the Hawks.
Krause, on the other hand, appears to be someone willing to spend a lot of money (whether it's all his money, all investors money, or a degree of both) to build a facility to play in as well as buy a franchise. No one is stupid enough to spend $1bn (or more) on a NHL franchise only to run it into the ground, not even Atlanta Spirit. Krause is also singularly focused on hockey. That's also a plus, particularly when you consider the history of the Thrashers is littered with season after season where the owners -- be it Turner or Atlanta Spirit -- spent the least amount possible. The only real exception is 2005-2006, when Atlanta Spirit was trying to sell the team for relocation.
While the concern certainly isn't unfounded (Murphy's Law, and all that), it's also not something anyone needs to think about right nowI. After all, there isn't yet a team or a building.
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,727
I'm honestly going to tell you that you have no idea if there really are or are not "46 additional players of high quality and skill that are just sitting out there and unable to play because there aren't enough teams," just like you have no idea if there really are "2-3 players on most every team that probably should be playing in the AHL, but are forced onto an NHL roster because there isn't enough quality talent out there to fill those spots."
It's your opinion there is, you think that's right, but you can't prove it in any way beyond "I think" or "I feel like" without resorting to things like oh, come on, everyone knows that everyone is supposed to accept as fact without questioning.
I'm also honestly going to tell you that you should never think you know what I'm thinking, much less think that you know what I'm telling you if I don't explicitly say it, because I can assure you that you never will.
You do realize that any time expansion happens, everything in that above remark is 100% accurate ... right? I don't care how high the talent level is and how few teams there are, expansion immediately dilutes the talent level and teams have to reach deeper to find guys to fill out their rosters - meaning, they have to add guys who previously weren't deemed to be of "league caliber" [because if they were, they'd be in the league already] but now are in the league out of necessity.
Your argument implies that there's some objective standard by which everyone can identify when a player is or isn't "league caliber" and that such a standard can be used to decide when expansion is "acceptable" or not, and that you apparently know it to such a level that you think there are "2-3 players on most every team that probably should be playing in the AHL, but are forced onto an NHL roster because there isn't enough quality talent out there to fill those spots."
And I'm saying that idea is complete and utter horseshit.
MuckOG
Registered User
- May 18, 2012
- 15,709
- 5,718
First, of course it's "my opinion"....isn't that what message boards are for, to express "our opinions"???
Second, you imply my opinion is "complete and utter horseshit", but than you also agree that any expansion will further dilute the available talent in the league.
Third, I never claimed there was an "objective standard" by which someone can identify if a player is "league caliber". My point (which you seem to agree with), is that the talent pool gets stretched with every expansion in the league....which by definition means, fewer talented players on each team. The result is that players who previously wouldn't be considered for an NHL roster spot, now are out of necessity.
Finally, where do you think these 46 additional players are going to come from? Is there a "player tree" that I'm unaware of that just grows talented, NHL-caliber players that new teams can just pick from?
dj4aces
An Intricate Piece of Infinity
When the league expanded from six teams to 12, where did the players come from? When the league expanded from 21 to 30 teams, where did that talent come from?
It's funny, really. "The talent pool" is always an initial argument against expanding until it's proven to not be an issue at all. No, Chicken Little, the sky isn't falling.
MuckOG
Registered User
- May 18, 2012
- 15,709
- 5,718
When the league expanded from 6 to 12 teams, there were very few kids in the US playing hockey. Most came from Minnesota and Massachusetts, there were also very few players coming from Europe and none from Russia. Once the NHL opened up to Europe and Russia and the number of kids playing hockey in the US increased, the league was able to use these new players to support the growing number of teams.
Jump forward to now, USA hockey registration isn't growing at the same pace. Even here in Minnesota, we are seeing more HS teams co-op because they can no longer sustain on their own due to fewer players. Hockey is an expensive sport, combine that with the demographic shifts and we are starting to hit the wall on the number of new players taking up the game.
What additional regions can we draw new players from that we aren't now? The Far East or Africa?
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,727
Weird that it seems you get to express your opinion and I should just take it and be silent, but then I express my opinion and you seem to take offense to it.
Almost like maybe there's a double-standard going on. Well, probably not - I'm sure this is different.I said the idea that any standard can be defined to objectively determine who is and who isn't "league caliber" such that it can be used to determine when expansion is and isn't acceptable such that it doesn't dilute talent across the league is complete and utter horseshit.
Please learn how to read what's written, not what you want to believe was written.
I did agree that any expansion further dilutes the available talent in the league. I also said - which, if you'd read the comment completely, you'd have understood - that's true for any expansion, even one where the league is chock full of talent and everyone playing is of "league caliber." Expansion necessarily adds in players who are not "league caliber" and now teams have to add those guys to the roster ... which, going back to your original complaint, now means that teams have "2-3 players on most every team that probably should be playing in the AHL [or whatever lower league], but are forced onto an NHL [main league] roster because there isn't enough quality talent out there to fill those spots" which now becomes a reason why a league should not expand.
In other words: you create circular logic where "we can't expand until there's enough talent to play in the league" yet "if a guy was talented enough to play in the league, he'd already be there - but he's not there, so he doesn't have enough talent" and so there's never a point at which expansion is acceptable. Which, that's pretty much the argument used by everyone who's against expansion.
Your continued assertions about how many players aren't qualified to play in the league imply that you have some way of knowing who is and isn't able to play in the league. Which,
* If you do have such a way, please explain how you're deciding that to some objective standard that doesn't rely on "I think" or "I know" or "it's obvious that" or other similar statements
* If you don't have such a way, simply concede that you're guessing that's the case, you think that's the case, but you really don't know if that's the case, but you want everyone to believe it because otherwise someone else's skepticism is devastating to your argument.
Answered above, but I'm going to point out again: complaining ""the talent pool gets stretched with every expansion in the league....which by definition means, fewer talented players on each team" is an argument for never expanding, because it is impossible to have an expansion that strengthens the talent pool and means more talented players on every team. Or, keeps the talent pool the same and means the same number of talented players on every team.
You mean like guys who were added to the league in the Next Six expansion? They weren't previously considered for an NHL roster spot, but they were out of necessity. And, it diluted the talent level across the NHL. And, that caused existing teams to have to add to the roster a few players who weren't "NHL caliber" - because, again, if they were NHL caliber they would have already been on the NHL roster to begin with.
So by your own arguments: the league should have never expanded beyond 6 teams in 1967, or even expanded the playing roster from 16 skaters + 2 goalies to 17+2 in 1971 and then to 18+2 in 1982, because all of those moves diluted the talent level in the league and added players who otherwise wouldn't have been qualified to play in the NHL.
Bottom line: I really don't care about whether the league expands or not. It doesn't affect me at all. I do want you to recognize how terrible your argument is for why the league shouldn't expand, and that you're making the same exact unprovable arguments people in the past made for why a league shouldn't expand, right down to "I believe _________ is true, so it is true, so everyone else needs to accept it's true, if you think I'm wrong you have to prove otherwise."
dj4aces
An Intricate Piece of Infinity
You wrote a lot of words, then tried to bury the lede. The fact that hockey is an expensive sport is why you see problems getting kids to play. Kids grow, after all, and could end up growing two or three sizes over the course of an entire season, which gets incredibly pricy for parents.
But with that said, the talent pool still isn't shallow, and it still won't be made shallow by expanding by two, four, or more teams. More teams in more places spurs more interest. If you're interested in fixing the problem of fewer high school kids participating in hockey in Minnesota, maybe the solution isn't to stop expansion in the NHL. Perhaps the solution is to see that gear is priced at a level where parents can actually afford it without them having to take out a second mortgage.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 25,182
- 12,804
Ya definitely will dilute the league, there is no debate on that. Bottom 2 lines won’t be good.
dj4aces
An Intricate Piece of Infinity
It depends on what population data is being used. The wiki page links to the Atlanta article, where the population figure listed is the urban population. However, the Metro Atlanta article lists urban, MSA, and CSA populations.
For our Canadian friends, the figure most commonly cited is the MSA population, which sits at 6.2 million as of our 2020 census. Yeah, it can get pretty confusing, and I feel like that's exactly how governments like it.
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,300
- 18,694
You need 0.3% of their population to fill an NHL arena. If they're a good team, they'll have no problem doing that, just like any other sports team in the continent.
Except Winnipeg, I guess, who can't fill a smaller arena when their team is among the top teams in the conference.
To repeat for the millionth time, between 1999 and 2011, the Chicago Blackhawks had 3 years of attendance worse than any single Thrashers season.
dj4aces
An Intricate Piece of Infinity
At this point, I think the folks who pop up with arguments like that are just trolling.
Further, given how much the Atlanta market has grown in just the last ten years, I'd argue the number of fans in the area has increased, if for no other reason than fans from other markets moving into the area.
- Jun 22, 2018
- 8,281
- 19,346
Giving a city a third try at a franchise is so insanely stupid I can’t even believe it’s up for discussion
I know. I'm just tired of hearing the same old lies repeated over and over again. If every market that saw <14k attendance since 1999 was deemed not good enough for NHL hockey, we'd be down to ~15 teams today. Ottawa, Winnipeg, Buffalo NYI, Pittsburgh, Washington and Chicago would all be gone. Edmonton slips by as their worst years were back in the mid rather than late 90's. Give teams a chance to rebound, and they typically do.
Bear of Bad News
"The Worst Guy on the Site" - user feedback
- Sep 27, 2005
- 13,896
- 28,672
If you reviewed the case on its current merits instead of just clicking the odometer ahead to "third try", you'd see why "up for discussion" is obvious.
Ted Hoffman
Done
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,289
- 8,727
People wanted to move St. Louis in 2006 when fans wouldn't show up to watch a godawful team created by Bill Laurie in his Rain of Terror to "make the team more attractive" to sell to someone else.
- Status
