2025-2026 NHL Offseason

Dr. Delight

MayDay10 wrote:

Bettman isnt some overlord.



To me contraction isnt an option. The talent is not watered down at all. The sport is being played by way more kids than ever before, and also the inclusion of European players makes the overall talent level many times what it was when there were 21 teams. Contraction would make the NHL completely second-rate in the public's eye and it would also cut down on overall television revenue.

I disagree. As far as contraction, the NHL has long been looked at as being 2nd or even 3rd rate in the eye of the sports world.(Public)

Drowned Out

I think contraction and revenue sharing are totally separate issues....
I would support moving a couple of teams, but not contraction.

MayDay10

Drowned Out wrote:

I think contraction and revenue sharing are totally separate issues....
I would support moving a couple of teams, but not contraction.

There really isnt much reason for it (contraction). There are still places open that would support hockey/and/or be appealing markets for the NHL to explore.

Seattle
Houston
Kansas City
Quebec
Toronto II
Saskatoon (buyers interested, no NHL interest yet).

lukin2006

MayDay10 wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

I think contraction and revenue sharing are totally separate issues....
I would support moving a couple of teams, but not contraction.

There really isnt much reason for it (contraction). There are still places open that would support hockey/and/or be appealing markets for the NHL to explore.

Seattle
Houston
Kansas City
Quebec
Toronto II
Saskatoon (buyers interested, no NHL interest yet).

they tried KC...it failed
Toronto 2 will never happen, the leafs will not share their market
Houston - no more teams in the south
Seattle - maybe
Quebec and Saskatoon - I think the NHL should wait and see how things go in Winnipeg first, if the team doesn't make the playoffs consistently will the fans continue to support it, that is yet to be seen.

I'm all for contraction...I think 2 things really motivated expansion...$$$ and the belief that the talent pool in Europe was equal to or as great as the talent pool in Canada...which it is not...but that's the NHL ownership problem for not doing proper market research to see if their was enough talent to stock 5-6 more teams.

81

lets be honest....they will never contract a team.

Drowned Out

MayDay10 wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

I think contraction and revenue sharing are totally separate issues....
I would support moving a couple of teams, but not contraction.

There really isnt much reason for it (contraction). There are still places open that would support hockey/and/or be appealing markets for the NHL to explore.

Seattle
Houston
Kansas City
Quebec
Toronto II
Saskatoon (buyers interested, no NHL interest yet).

exactly....Seattle would be a great rivalry for Van...the Nordiques never should have left...Toronto II is a natural - the Leafs can f themselves, they have a monopoly on a market that could support five teams.....Kansas has a great arena and would be a good spot to grow the game (when was the failure you're talking about lukin?)....Houston....dunno....huge market, but I'm leary of another southern/texan team, esp with Dallas trying to turn a corner.
I don't think Saskatoon's rink is big enough right now, they'd need a big expansion....but judging by the province-wide support of their CFL team enjoys (the entire province seems to come to Edmonton every time they play here) - they would have some of the most rabid fans in the NHL. Plus, they're fun to pick on Shame it's not really on the radar.
I think Winnipeg's fans will support their team no matter what (as Saskatoon and Quebec City would). Corp support may be more fickle, but if the fans keep showing up, the corps will keep supporting them too. Things have changed since they left the first time. Look at the Oil back then...we were averaging 6-7k fans a game, and it was blamed on our on-ice performance. Well....we've finished last/second last three years running...and have sold out every home game during that run.

MayDay10

lukin2006 wrote:

MayDay10 wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

I think contraction and revenue sharing are totally separate issues....
I would support moving a couple of teams, but not contraction.

There really isnt much reason for it (contraction). There are still places open that would support hockey/and/or be appealing markets for the NHL to explore.

Seattle
Houston
Kansas City
Quebec
Toronto II
Saskatoon (buyers interested, no NHL interest yet).

they tried KC...it failed
Toronto 2 will never happen, the leafs will not share their market
Houston - no more teams in the south
Seattle - maybe
Quebec and Saskatoon - I think the NHL should wait and see how things go in Winnipeg first, if the team doesn't make the playoffs consistently will the fans continue to support it, that is yet to be seen.

I'm all for contraction...I think 2 things really motivated expansion...$$$ and the belief that the talent pool in Europe was equal to or as great as the talent pool in Canada...which it is not...but that's the NHL ownership problem for not doing proper market research to see if their was enough talent to stock 5-6 more teams.

It has been speculated the NHL is poised to announce an expansion team for Markham, Ontario, as well as Quebec City, once the lockout is over
Here is a good article on the forces that will make it happen:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1353 ... ill-happen

Also, I disagree with the league being watered down and the rest of the world failing to pick up the slack from Canadians. Although I agree Canada is the best, they had 14/30 first rounders in this year's draft. It used to be a much higher of a %.
Also look at the WJC. Not too long ago it was Canada by a landslide. Now there are other nations that are able to compete and win Gold.
You also need to take into account how much more advanced and sophisticated player development, training, nutrition, etc have become in the past 20 years.

I do agree that Houston/KC are cringeworthy... But if there is a team flailing in the wind with no owner, and a buyer in one of those cities, the NHL would be all over that as opposed to contraction. Especially Houston which is like the 5th biggest US TV market.

Johnny Abruzzo

Bleacher Report? Really? That's like the righties posting fox news articles.

polaris_x

i really don't think any of those markets will work ... today, pro sports survives on season tickets and corporate sponsors and/or huge tax grants ...

i just don't think there is the corporate sponsorship in these smaller markets ... maybe seattle but definitely not Quebec City or Saskatoon ... Houston is a poor choice considering Dallas is a well run franchise and yet they have some of the lowest attendance numbers ... Kansas ... I just don't think of hockey when it comes to Kansas ... and as far as Toronto goes ... the city is not going to support another franchise especially if it's run anywhere like the leafs ... markham is full of asians - building an arena there isn't going to change the fact they aren't a huge hockey demographic ...

MayDay10

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Bleacher Report? Really? That's like the righties posting fox news articles.

well it was in The Hockey News a week ago as well.

MayDay10

polaris_x wrote:

i really don't think any of those markets will work ... today, pro sports survives on season tickets and corporate sponsors and/or huge tax grants ...

i just don't think there is the corporate sponsorship in these smaller markets ... maybe seattle but definitely not Quebec City or Saskatoon ... Houston is a poor choice considering Dallas is a well run franchise and yet they have some of the lowest attendance numbers ... Kansas ... I just don't think of hockey when it comes to Kansas ... and as far as Toronto goes ... the city is not going to support another franchise especially if it's run anywhere like the leafs ... markham is full of asians - building an arena there isn't going to change the fact they aren't a huge hockey demographic ...

Hockey in Toronto tends to not do well when it isnt the Leafs.

I was able to easily score tickets to the Memorial Cup in the Hershey Centre and I swear the game wasnt sold out. I have been to Brampton games with a couple hundred people tops.

lukin2006

Drowned Out wrote:

MayDay10 wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

I think contraction and revenue sharing are totally separate issues....
I would support moving a couple of teams, but not contraction.

There really isnt much reason for it (contraction). There are still places open that would support hockey/and/or be appealing markets for the NHL to explore.

Seattle
Houston
Kansas City
Quebec
Toronto II
Saskatoon (buyers interested, no NHL interest yet).

exactly....Seattle would be a great rivalry for Van...the Nordiques never should have left...Toronto II is a natural - the Leafs can f themselves, they have a monopoly on a market that could support five teams.....Kansas has a great arena and would be a good spot to grow the game (when was the failure you're talking about lukin?)....Houston....dunno....huge market, but I'm leary of another southern/texan team, esp with Dallas trying to turn a corner.
I don't think Saskatoon's rink is big enough right now, they'd need a big expansion....but judging by the province-wide support of their CFL team enjoys (the entire province seems to come to Edmonton every time they play here) - they would have some of the most rabid fans in the NHL. Plus, they're fun to pick on Shame it's not really on the radar.
I think Winnipeg's fans will support their team no matter what (as Saskatoon and Quebec City would). Corp support may be more fickle, but if the fans keep showing up, the corps will keep supporting them too. Things have changed since they left the first time. Look at the Oil back then...we were averaging 6-7k fans a game, and it was blamed on our on-ice performance. Well....we've finished last/second last three years running...and have sold out every home game during that run.

Kansas City Scouts
Toronto owns the territory...they're not going to give it up, and if they do it'd probably be 200-300 million.
as for Quebec and Saskatoon...whats wrong with the league waiting five years to see how Winnipeg does.
The Oilers have a promising future...that helps.

polaris_x

MayDay10 wrote:

Hockey in Toronto tends to not do well when it isnt the Leafs.

I was able to easily score tickets to the Memorial Cup in the Hershey Centre and I swear the game wasnt sold out. I have been to Brampton games with a couple hundred people tops.

exactly ... there's just a lot of options now to spend dollars in the city ... both publicly and corporately ... toronto is hockey mad but not enough to support another franchise ... i'd sooner put a team in Hamilton and hope for the best there ...

lukin2006

MayDay10 wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

MayDay10 wrote:

There really isnt much reason for it (contraction). There are still places open that would support hockey/and/or be appealing markets for the NHL to explore.

Seattle
Houston
Kansas City
Quebec
Toronto II
Saskatoon (buyers interested, no NHL interest yet).

they tried KC...it failed
Toronto 2 will never happen, the leafs will not share their market
Houston - no more teams in the south
Seattle - maybe
Quebec and Saskatoon - I think the NHL should wait and see how things go in Winnipeg first, if the team doesn't make the playoffs consistently will the fans continue to support it, that is yet to be seen.

I'm all for contraction...I think 2 things really motivated expansion...$$$ and the belief that the talent pool in Europe was equal to or as great as the talent pool in Canada...which it is not...but that's the NHL ownership problem for not doing proper market research to see if their was enough talent to stock 5-6 more teams.

It has been speculated the NHL is poised to announce an expansion team for Markham, Ontario, as well as Quebec City, once the lockout is over
Here is a good article on the forces that will make it happen:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1353 ... ill-happen

Also, I disagree with the league being watered down and the rest of the world failing to pick up the slack from Canadians. Although I agree Canada is the best, they had 14/30 first rounders in this year's draft. It used to be a much higher of a %.
Also look at the WJC. Not too long ago it was Canada by a landslide. Now there are other nations that are able to compete and win Gold.
You also need to take into account how much more advanced and sophisticated player development, training, nutrition, etc have become in the past 20 years.

I do agree that Houston/KC are cringeworthy... But if there is a team flailing in the wind with no owner, and a buyer in one of those cities, the NHL would be all over that as opposed to contraction. Especially Houston which is like the 5th biggest US TV market.

They can't just put an expansion team in Toronto...the leafs have a vested interest...I doubt anyone has even talked to the leafs about how much they want in terms of $$$, and I'm not convinced the leafs want share the market.

Quebec City doesn't even have an NHL arena in place.

Take a look at the last 4 cup winners and the concentration of Canadian players is extremely high...I belief at least 50 % are canucks and probably higher.

As for the world juniors we've medaled in 13 strait years and have 10 golds since '93 and only failed to medal in '98.

Since the NHL began participating in the Olympics we're the only country to strike gold more than once.

The league really over estimated european talent to help fill the expansion rosters. The league is watered down.

lukin2006

MayDay10 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

i really don't think any of those markets will work ... today, pro sports survives on season tickets and corporate sponsors and/or huge tax grants ...

i just don't think there is the corporate sponsorship in these smaller markets ... maybe seattle but definitely not Quebec City or Saskatoon ... Houston is a poor choice considering Dallas is a well run franchise and yet they have some of the lowest attendance numbers ... Kansas ... I just don't think of hockey when it comes to Kansas ... and as far as Toronto goes ... the city is not going to support another franchise especially if it's run anywhere like the leafs ... markham is full of asians - building an arena there isn't going to change the fact they aren't a huge hockey demographic ...

Hockey in Toronto tends to not do well when it isnt the Leafs.

I was able to easily score tickets to the Memorial Cup in the Hershey Centre and I swear the game wasnt sold out. I have been to Brampton games with a couple hundred people tops.

The Memorial should never have been held there...Mississauga junior hockey draws terrible.

MayDay10

well, it was pretty much bought by Melnyk, right?

Glad I got a chance to go at the very least.

Then he sold St Mikes and they are now the Missisauga "Steelheads".

unless Im mistaken.

lukin2006

MayDay10 wrote:

well, it was pretty much bought by Melnyk, right?

Glad I got a chance to go at the very least.

Then he sold St Mikes and they are now the Missisauga "Steelheads".

unless Im mistaken.

I think thats what they call themselves...I don't think junior hockey does well in the Toronto area as far as attendance. Now the junior hockey players have or are in the process of unionizing.

MayDay10

oh, thats great.

I often go to Niagara IceDogs games in St Catherines. Its a blast and they pack their building (although it is small).


And back to the thread... it looks like players are coming out and shooting down the proposal... and baby huey came out with a statement that deflates any hope.

polaris_x

this is why i side with the players ...

thing is every time there is a negotiation ... it will always be players making concessions ... so, it's 50/50 now but next go around it will be 45-55 ... this is a negotiation that starts off with the players making concessions on where they are currently ... they are constantly negotiation away where as the owners are always taking ...

the league has seen excellent growth and record breaking revenues ... why is it that the players must always give in?

Gary Carter

polaris_x wrote:

this is why i side with the players ...

thing is every time there is a negotiation ... it will always be players making concessions ... so, it's 50/50 now but next go around it will be 45-55 ... this is a negotiation that starts off with the players making concessions on where they are currently ... they are constantly negotiation away where as the owners are always taking ...

the league has seen excellent growth and record breaking revenues ... why is it that the players must always give in?

agreed, but this time the players have to agree or else everyone turn on them.

Hockey should contract, not expand. IF any deserves a team its Hartford. I'd like to see