It's not revisionist at all. Once the NHL expanded their footprint into the southern states and the best hockey league in the world now fully covered the United States it was pretty obvious that with more people exposed to the game, more people would be playing the game and the US would be able to turn out a much higher volume of high end hockey players. Don Cherry didn't have a crystal ball to come up with this conclusion. It was widely discussed back in the late 80's have the Wayne Gretzky trade and it was a very common topic of discussion once teams were in Dallas, San Jose, Florida and Anaheim.
But it is revisionist because I watched the segment and I know the context I'm quoting is different from the one you recall.
The widely discussed element of Gretzky's move to LA was the
intended effect of bringing awareness to non-traditional hockey markets i.e. California, Arizona, Florida and Texas. That was the business plan of the NHL. The secondary element of inspiring greater participation wasn't a foregone conclusion. It was aspirational. Still is. Built into various proposals was the built-in population of repatriated Canadians. This supported and mixed with (hopefully) a local population sold on the game's entry into the American big three of baseball, football and basketball. Want to take a step at where hockey ranks in the American sports market today?
But that's not what Cherry noted. His was a commentary on the quality of the American program which still populated the majority of it's teams from traditional American hockey areas.
IF it was - as you claim - easily anticipated, the percentage of non-traditional hockey market draftees would generate a (and I quote) "much higher volume of high end hockey players", then the occasional Auston Matthews. A selection considered novel. Players from Scottsdale and Ft.Lauderdale and Raleigh would have saturated USA Hockey according to your claim of Cherry's...And they haven't. They're still exceptions to the rule against traditional American hockey states populating USA Hockey.
So your memory buoyed by the hypothetical doesn't actually support one and the other any more than occasioning that Cherry was a fool for not referring to volume in an exchange where remembering the context of his assertion is of primary concern. You either remember what he referenced, or you don't, and your premise is invalid. And...your premise is invalid.
If he wasn't referring to volume then (not surprisingly) he's a fool. Of course it's because of a volume. With increased players, comes increased coaches, better staffing and training at the University level and, of course, improvements across the board with the National team. Volume of players drives all of this and that should be obvious. With more and more people playing, the programs starting at the pee wee level all the way up to the NCAA got an influx of talent and the standards rose dramatically. You'd have to be an idiot not to have seen an increase of US born and trained talent in the NHL coming decades ago.
If...then...Well...
If he's a fool, he'd fit right in with Finland's national hockey program. Because quality doesn't necessarily follow from quantity. And more's the point, we're talking about what he actually referred to as prompted by your post. Hypotheticals and assumptions after the fact don't mean a thing and aren't supported by present day outcomes from the expansion south according to your analysis.
Don Cherry wasn't an idiot when he - against the common opinion - championed USA Hockey. And in a conversation of reasonable hypotheticals, why would Cherry champion quantity opposite quality when all Cherry is concerned about is superiority? And that's precisely what impressed him. Not the amount of American players in non-traditional markets, but the fact that the OHL and the Q weren't going to be the only training grounds for American players. And that the USA Hockey operation was going to give the established hockey powers a run for their money in every tournament and every league of note in the hockey world.