# NHL Expansion



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

The NHL is considering expanding by as many as four teams, according to a pair of reports, with Toronto and Quebec City in the mix to land new franchises.


Howard Bloom of Sports Business News tweeted that the league will add four franchises "by 2017" in Toronto, Quebec City, Las Vegas and Seattle.


Bloom added that the NHL would take in $1.4 billion in expansion fees with the deals.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

I wonder how many owners of existing weak franchises would rather take someone else's money in a sale rather than a cheque for expansion fees. Most NHL teams lose money....

I think the player talent pool has to be pretty thin to support any more teams. I mean, look at the Oilers, who have had dozens of marginal players pass through their roster the past 5 years - they've been pathetic the entire time.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Plus Vegas is just wasting time and money. It will never be supported. If Seattle gets an NBA team back and the NHL its the perfect sports town to live in.


----------



## ThatGingerMojo (Jul 30, 2014)

Remember this joke....

Why won't Hamilton get a professional hockey team???

Because then Toronto will want one.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Plus Vegas is just wasting time and money. It will never be supported. If Seattle gets an NBA team back and the NHL its the perfect sports town to live in.


Supported as in by fans, or as in by owners not wanting to expand into the gambling capital?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

keto said:


> Supported as in by fans, or as in by owners not wanting to expand into the gambling capital?


Maybe both but in terms of fans the hockey base there is practically zero. They pretty much already said they would be counting on visitors to fill seats. Now that's a gamble with odds only Vegas would take


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I wonder why the sudden change of heart?
Its odd to me that the NHL would rather entrench financially disastrous teams while allowing new ones to expand, instead of moving teams from weak markets to more viable ones?

- - - Updated - - -



GuitarsCanada said:


> Maybe both but in terms of fans the hockey base there is practically zero. They pretty much already said they would be counting on visitors to fill seats. Now that's a gamble with odds only Vegas would take


That's an awful strategy.
Florida teams have the luxury of all the Canadian tourists that go there every year...and they still struggle to stay afloat in spite of really amazing ticket packages (by Toronto/Montreal standards).


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

I don't know about from Ontario & East, but to fly to Las Vegas is cheaper than to fly to Toronto from Edmonton. Lots here, go there for a weekend Getaway.
If they offer hotel/Hockey/casino packages they'll do ok with tourists from the Canadian West, and American North.


But Vegas has no identity of it's own for sports - Other than Boxing or MMA 
Even traditional sports that americans go crazy for have failed in Las Vegas. 
Most notably is Football: The Arena League failed there, and the XFL failed there (might have been because the league failed) 

Interesting though, Pro hockey already exists in LAs Vegas. There is an ECHL team. For those that don't know the ECHL is like the farm team for the AHL 

A second team in Toronto is decades Overdue, I thought that growing up there , I still think it now, Same with a Second CFL team
Another team is Quebec City is (to me) is the risk - moreso than Vegas. Better to put a cheaper CFL or AHL team there.
Seattle is 50/50 on an NHL team as well.


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

You can only move franchises if the present owner is willing to sell and nobody in the existing marketplace is willing to buy it .AFAIK
Phoenix for example,was being suggested as a franchise to move until another local owners group stepped up,(why god only knows)

The only thing that expansion would achieve now,(besides weakening the talent pool like was mentioned), is to further line the pockets of the existing owners with the expansion fees ,which is probably why they are considering it (if they really are).

I think a team in Quebec City has a far better chance of success than a team in Vegas .
The people that are going to Vegas for a weekend getaway are not going to be too interested in going to a hockey game IMO.
The tourist ticket is not going to support a team,as evidenced by the two struggling teams in Florida,which has a large winter population of "snowbirds"

Bettman seems hell bent on trying to establish teams where there is little interest so who knowsmight even see on in Bhopal 
I can see another team in Toronto eventually ,the marketplace is there for the taking but see above.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

I think it's a Totally different type of Tourist that goes to Vegas. 
Florida - Family or retiree's - Limited income, limited budget, slow lifestyle.
Las Vegas - Young, High wage earners, Looking for Fun. 

I'd think Vegas would always have a "Visitor's Crowd" in the rink, But it'd probably make money.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

The issue with another team in Toronto, is most teams have a certain non-compete clause that stipulates that the league cant put another team right on its doorstep ie within a certain distance.
the only way around that, that I see, is if the TML ownership is given the right to start a second team thereby controlling the degree of completion. It's not just about ticket sales. Broadcast rights are usually what's really at stake.
so bad news is, if you think the owners of MLSE will start a new team and drop ticket prices, or give free tv access to games, you're dreaming.

i just don't know where they could put a second team in the GTA that would be worthwhile to invest in a huge arena....remember, arenas usually need other revenue streams as well....a secondary team, concerts, events etc.

having been to Marlies, Roadrunners games, I'm not convinced this city will support any team besides TML when it comes to shelling out money...talk is cheap. But will thousands come out to see the North York Nobodys play (and likely tank for over a decade)? Doubt it.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

I think they need to go to an EPL like division system. 1st and 2nd division with promotion and demotion based on performance. It's the only thing that will bring meaning to the season and will give teams in both divisions something to strive for. 

Stanley Cup competion could be played throughout the year similar to the FA Cup.

just my 0.02c.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

I wouldn't hold my breath on Toronto getting another hockey team.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

They'd be better off losing a couple of teams and shrinking, rather than expanding.

And having one conference of 14 teams and the other with 16 is ridiculous--they can do 15 & 15--or better yet--3 of 10 teams (Unless they shrink)


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

zontar said:


> They'd be better off losing a couple of teams and shrinking, rather than expanding.


I agree completely.

Bettman ruined the NHL.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

The decisions are all based on money (business) decisions and not what's best for the game. I'm frankly tired of it all in all the sports, not just hockey.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

smorgdonkey said:


> I agree completely.
> 
> Bettman ruined the NHL.


I guess it depends on which side of the blue line you are looking at it. Owners worship him like a god


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I guess it depends on which side of the blue line you are looking at it. Owners worship him like a god


The owners worship him because they still call the shots and the lockout proved it. All the players had to do was start their own league and they would have dramatically changed the landscape...I guess they were too short-sighted for that(?).

That said, even the players have prospered enormously from 'his' NHL. Ruin is still ruin though.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

djmarcelca said:


> A second team in Toronto is decades Overdue, I thought that growing up there , I still think it now, Same with a Second CFL team
> Another team is Quebec City is (to me) is the risk - moreso than Vegas. Better to put a cheaper CFL or AHL team there.
> Seattle is 50/50 on an NHL team as well.


A second CFL team in Toronto wouldn't survive. There isn't enough fan support even for the Argo's. A hockey team in Quebec City would be the most profitable of all the potential places for a new team. Don't forget, the only reason the Nordiques were sold and became the Avalanche is because there was no revenue sharing back then. The Nordiques were a good team that sold out every game. The problem was they couldn't compete dollar wise. Without revenue sharing the NHL wouldn't have near the number of teams they have now. The Leafs, Canadians and the Rangers basically carry the rest of the league.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I don't follow sports at all anymore. I think if the NHL gets any more teams, they will never have an off season. They will be playing for the cup a week before the next season starts.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> I agree completely.
> 
> Bettman ruined the NHL.


Ruined??
seems a bit dramatic.
the product is still a good one.
The main thing wrong with it, is it's being stubbornly forced on markets that aren't really interested in it. Doesn't really affect me, or my enjoyment of it.
and the markets that are interested in it, aren't as hockey smart as they think they are. They proud of their loyalty for supporting a team that hasn't seriously contended in 40 years, and revere guys like Tie domi and Wendell Clark as "legends".


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Diablo said:


> Ruined??
> seems a bit dramatic.


Ruined. The ridiculous stickwork, the mandating that certain actions be penalized but then not enforcing that decision along the way, poor rule changes. To me, couple that with the 'systems play' and it is ruined.



Diablo said:


> The main thing wrong with it, is it's being stubbornly forced on markets that aren't really interested in it. Doesn't really affect me, or my enjoyment of it.


That's not the main thing to me but I agree that it is bad. One might mention at this point the exodus of Winnipeg's Jets from Canada...back when that happened, the 'Save The Jets' movement raised WAY more money than they needed to to 'keep the team' but it didn't matter because Bettman had already decided that it was gone (to a place that doesn't give a schlitz). Also the deal was just about done to have Pittsburgh sold and Bettman renegged at the last second when he realized the new owner would move the team - at the time, Pittsburgh had very little interest in the team but then drafted Crosby. 



Diablo said:


> and the markets that are interested in it, aren't as hockey smart as they think they are. They proud of their loyalty for supporting a team that hasn't seriously contended in 40 years, and revere guys like Tie domi and Wendell Clark as "legends".


You are obviously talking about Toronto there...1993 they were contenders (should have been in the finals) and in fact, were final 4 teams 2 years in a row. Fans don't get to pick their GMs. I don't know many who call Domi a 'legend' but Clark is iconic and a blueprint all-around player.

Perhaps you were watching something other than hockey(?).


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

I don't think the game has been ruined. It's a faster paced game then it has ever been. Rules are enforced. The rule changes they have made over the last few years speeds up the game and the no touch iceing should have been there years ago. The Jets originally left Winnipeg because they couldn't compete dollar wise. Pittsburg wasn't going anywhere, lol. The team was on the verge of bankruptcy because they owed Mario Lemieux so much money. The product on the ice in Pittsburg wasn't what the fans where used to back then so they stopped going to games. I would call Domi a Legend in Toronto. He played a regular shift, averaged over 20 points a season while only playing 10 minutes a game and could basically beat the hell out of every other tough guy on the ice. Oh, and he was only 5 foot ten inches tall and rarely missed a game.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

TA462 said:


> Rules are enforced.


Obstruction was enforced quite well all of last year and then LA obstructed routinely against Chicago in the playoffs...what's the point if they are going to do that? 



TA462 said:


> Pittsburg wasn't going anywhere, lol.


Yes they were...there was a purchase agreed to by Bettman and when he realized that the buyer had interest in moving the team, he threw in a 'must leave the team in Pittsburgh for 10 years' clause. That killed the deal and that potential buyer became blacklisted by Bettman.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

The buyer was Lemieux, the owner of the Penguins as of right now. He threatened to move the team if the Penguins didn't get a new arena. Bettman and the NHL had no say in it. The City of Pittsburg had no choice but to give in to Mario. The Penguins weren't going anywhere, lol. If you don't believe me then Google it.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

smorgdonkey said:


> Obstruction was enforced quite well all of last year and then LA obstructed routinely against Chicago in the playoffs...what's the point if they are going to do that?


If you call hitting anyone that had the puck obstruction then ya, I guess LA did that. The Kings hit anything that moved during the season, that's the way they play. That's the way that Conference plays.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

TA462 said:


> The buyer was Lemieux, the owner of the Penguins as of right now. He threatened to move the team if the Penguins didn't get a new arena. Bettman and the NHL had no say in it. The City of Pittsburg had no choice but to give in to Mario.


The buyer wasn't Lemieux...the buyer was Jim Balsillie who offered Lemieux and his partners $185 million. Lemieux was owed so much by the franchise that he acquired ownership. Balsillie pulled his bid when Bettman said that he was going to negotiate the arena deal for Balsillie and also that the NHL could take over the team if they needed to.



TA462 said:


> The Penguins weren't going anywhere, lol. If you don't believe me then Google it.


Well, I was actively following it at the time so, I don't need to. If you have a look, you will see that what I posted is true. That's the situation that got him blackballed so that he couldn't buy the Coyotes and Bettman probably backroomed the deal to keep Balsillie from getting the Predators a couple of years earlier too. How can you not know about the Balsillie thing?

- - - Updated - - -



TA462 said:


> If you call hitting anyone that had the puck obstruction then ya, I guess LA did that.


No...not what I am referring to. I am talking about when a Chicago player would dump the puck in then while chasing it in the LA player would straight arm them or grab them. That's obstruction. Even if the conference played like that (which they don't) it's obstruction - the rule that was supposed to allow the skill players to show their stuff. Kevin Hatcher could have played for LA this year in the playoffs IMO.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> Ruined. The ridiculous stickwork, the mandating that certain actions be penalized but then not enforcing that decision along the way, poor rule changes. To me, couple that with the 'systems play' and it is ruined.
> 
> 
> That's not the main thing to me but I agree that it is bad. One might mention at this point the exodus of Winnipeg's Jets from Canada...back when that happened, the 'Save The Jets' movement raised WAY more money than they needed to to 'keep the team' but it didn't matter because Bettman had already decided that it was gone (to a place that doesn't give a schlitz). Also the deal was just about done to have Pittsburgh sold and Bettman renegged at the last second when he realized the new owner would move the team - at the time, Pittsburgh had very little interest in the team but then drafted Crosby.
> ...


No, Ive watched hockey for years...but without the blinders of being a Leaf fan. I think we just have different definitions of certain words.
"Iconic" as it applies to clark? Pffttt.....only in Toronto...and for little reason. lead a team to multiple championships....lead the league in scoring.....then we can objectively talk about a label such as "iconic". In this case, over-rated is more apt. Ask a hockey fan outside the GTA about how "iconic" Clark is...the few that remember him, will say "who, that guy????". Sorry, takes more than a tough guy persona to truly be "iconic"...esp when he was as fragile as glass. Still waiting for Wendels HOF nomination to come through 

"contender".....again, maybe in the culture of losing that TML has developed...anywhere else, one must at least make it to the finals in 40+ years to be considered a true contender. the leafs in their "glorydays" that you are referring to were, objectively, no more "contenders" than the SanJose sharks of the past decade....except the Sharks could at least be considered underachievers based on the talent on their roster. 

"ruined"...no...merely imperfect...like all professional sports.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Good points but every one debatable. 

I still think Bettman ruined it.


----------



## james on bass (Feb 4, 2006)

smorgdonkey said:


> Good points but every one debatable.
> 
> I still think Bettman ruined it.



Absolutely - Bettman is an ass! Toronto, or elsewhere in Ontario should have had another team years ago. Vegas will tank. Quebec City will work well I think. I still think it's a crime that teams in Florida, Arizona, California are allowed to bleed money and not fill seats just to stroke Bettman's ego. The New York area has three teams. Ontario could support that easily. Population wise, I'd bet Ontario has as many hockey fans as the rest of the world. Keep Toronto, put another team in Whitby (or wherever that big arena is currently being built) and perhaps another in Waterloo or Hamilton. The population around here would keep all 3 viable.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Nice to read intelligent posts like yours James!

Some of the obvious things that I really dislike about Bettman's NHL are:

-yeah, those teams where nobody really wants them (thereby watering down the league IMO).
-the tossing away of the historic references in the old Division names (Adams, Smythe, Norris, etc) and Conference names (Wales and Campbell) for compass points. 
-the limits put on the size of goalie gear AFTER the gear was already ridiculous in size.
-I think the salary cap is ridiculous. It doesn't keep the owners from doing stupid things.
-I don't like that the talent is so migratory. Teams don't have identity like they used to.
-the policing of certain greasy stuff in the game is very poor and has every expert just guessing when a suspension is pending. That's on Bettman.
-the box behind the net where the goalie can't play the puck.
-the shootout is still stupid. The only good part about it is that it isn't in the playoffs. Why doesn't basketball go to the foul line when they are tied? It doesn't matter - basketball sucks, but you get the point.
-Bettman is annoying in interviews and has a few twitches. He also looks like he is going to cry when he's mad. Greasy piece of crap.

*I just saw Bettman do the ice bucket challenge in front of his castle - what a little wimp*


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

james on bass said:


> Absolutely - Bettman is an ass! Toronto, or elsewhere in Ontario should have had another team years ago. Vegas will tank. Quebec City will work well I think. I still think it's a crime that teams in Florida, Arizona, California are allowed to bleed money and not fill seats just to stroke Bettman's ego. The New York area has three teams. Ontario could support that easily. Population wise, I'd bet Ontario has as many hockey fans as the rest of the world. Keep Toronto, put another team in Whitby (or wherever that big arena is currently being built) and perhaps another in Waterloo or Hamilton. The population around here would keep all 3 viable.


Again, I don't know how realistic that is.
a sports team is essentially a franchise. Now, imagine if you shelled out the $2-3M to buy a Tim Hortons franchise. Next thing you know, TH sells another franchise to some guy who opens up a location across the road from you stealing a good part of your business. You would cry bloody murder. That's called in the industry, a channels conflict. And as such every franchisee (sports or otherwise) has an assigned "territory" of exclusivity.
the only way another team will exist in th GTa is if MLSE gives it's blessing (ya right), or gets a piece of th action, or essentially buys that franchise as well. 
And anything beyond that had better not step on the toes of the Sabres, red wings or senators.
in fact, few ppl will remember, but back in the day, TML tried to block the Senators expansion. But of course it's much harder to make a case against a city 5 hrs away then one 30min away.

sorry guys, hockey fandom and hockey business are 2 different things.
and it's not just bettman. For example, You can be sure that as long as the Bills are still in buffalo (not to mention the stupid arrangement of playing games in Skydome) TOronto will NEVER get an NFL team. Toronto will always be seen as Bills territory....esp while they are cash strapped.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> Nice to read intelligent posts like yours James!
> 
> Some of the obvious things that I really dislike about Bettman's NHL are:
> 
> ...


Added my comments above.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Suffice to say that you and I disagree on a lot and your counterpoints mostly address something other than my points.

One thing that's for sure though...the goalie gear got huge before they got away from wooden sticks. It can still be protective but huge in surface area is the issue.


----------



## james on bass (Feb 4, 2006)

So many good points here. Yeah I totally forgot about shoot-out... While it is entertaining, it's dumb (IMO) to settle a game with a skills competition. 82 game season and a half-dozen tie games are a problem? Keep the 5 minute OT, but scrap the shoot-out. 

No matter what the Leaf's franchise might say, another team in Toronto would in no-way hamper their sales. The Leafs are an iconic brand name & logo; just like the Habs, Yankees, Celtics, Cowboys etc...


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

james on bass said:


> So many good points here. Yeah I totally forgot about shoot-out... While it is entertaining, it's dumb (IMO) to settle a game with a skills competition. 82 game season and a half-dozen tie games are a problem? Keep the 5 minute OT, but scrap the shoot-out.
> 
> No matter what the Leaf's franchise might say, another team in Toronto would in no-way hamper their sales. The Leafs are an iconic brand name & logo; just like the Habs, Yankees, Celtics, Cowboys etc...


Maybe, but what does TML have to gain by risking even a single dollar/single fan?
they don't strike me as an organization that feels it makes "enough" money.
business decisions alway boil down to WIIFM.
TML haven't done anything just for the fans in decades.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

The only 2 cities who should get a team are not on the list, Hamilton and Kansas City...........

I cant believe anyone would not regard Wendal as iconic. Did you not see his fucking wrist shot. Fucking amazing. Look at his goals column. Now look at any enforcer today. See the difference? Will Chris Neil end his career with 330 goals in 793 games?...............


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> The only 2 cities who should get a team are not on the list, Hamilton and Kansas City...........
> 
> I cant believe anyone would not regard Wendal as iconic. Did you not see his fucking wrist shot. Fucking amazing. Look at his goals column. Now look at any enforcer today. See the difference? Will Chris Neil end his career with 330 goals in 793 games?...............


...not to mention that he was 185 pounds max and played like 210 - remember when he blasted McSorley for hitting Gilmour in the '93 playoffs? Unreal. The only time that they had a decent team was really those 2 years and the rest iof the time his talent was wasted. Had he been on any number of other teams he would be just as iconic and probably had a Stanley Cup ring as well.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I still loved that wrist shot, it was like watching hockey art.............

He is in some pretty good company here:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/goals_per_game_career.html


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Good post - goals per game. In the top 100 all-time is not too shabby.

He had a great slap shot that he used to let go coming over the blue line too but the wrister was definitely art!


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> The only 2 cities who should get a team are not on the list, Hamilton and Kansas City...........
> 
> I cant believe anyone would not regard Wendal as iconic. Did you not see his fucking wrist shot. Fucking amazing. Look at his goals column. Now look at any enforcer today. See the difference? Will Chris Neil end his career with 330 goals in 793 games?...............


 Im still not sold.
Don't get me wrong, im not saying he was a bad player. But I'd reserve words like "iconic" for the true greats of the game. Being iconic, is someone that's universally recognized. Wendel didn't make that big of a dent in the game...he just gave a bit of hope to some starving leaf fans. Id call him a "fan favorite" as opposed to an "icon". Sidney Crosby is an icon. Brooks Orpik is a fan favorite.
I also see Mats and Phil kessel on that gpg list. Are they icons? I don't think so. Of the lot of them, Mats comes the closest, but he doesn't satisfy that TML fan prerequisite of "grittiness", so will never work his way into their hearts. On some level, TML fans have never gotten past the '70s style of play of big meaningless hits and staged fights. That's why we keep getting stuck with guys like Phaneuf and Clarkson, both of whom were known for that style of play at one point in their careers, but come here as castrati.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

smorgdonkey said:


> The buyer wasn't Lemieux...the buyer was Jim Balsillie who offered Lemieux and his partners $185 million. Lemieux was owed so much by the franchise that he acquired ownership. Balsillie pulled his bid when Bettman said that he was going to negotiate the arena deal for Balsillie and also that the NHL could take over the team if they needed to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No thats not what happened. Lemieux owned the team, yes. He has owned it since 1999. Lemieux was the one that was actively looking to move the team because there was no new arena in the works. Balsillie wanted to buy the team and move it to Hamilton. When the Arena deal came through he withdrew his bid because he then couldn't move the team anymore. He then started selling season tickets to a team that was to be moved to Hamilton. He then tried to buy Nashville. He offered a ridiculous amount for them but was eventually turned down. Then he started the whole Coyotes fiasco. That's what got him black balled. He didn't own the Coyotes remember but the way he was throwing around money pissed off the other owners. They have the final say on who owns what believe it or not. NHL ownership is like a little boys club and Jim tried to buy his way into out. The Pittsburg thing had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Diablo said:


> Im still not sold.
> Don't get me wrong, im not saying he was a bad player. But I'd reserve words like "iconic" for the true greats of the game. Being iconic, is someone that's universally recognized. Wendel didn't make that big of a dent in the game...he just gave a bit of hope to some starving leaf fans. Id call him a "fan favorite" as opposed to an "icon". Sidney Crosby is an icon. Brooks Orpik is a fan favorite.
> I also see Mats and Phil kessel on that gpg list. Are they icons? I don't think so. Of the lot of them, Mats comes the closest, but he doesn't satisfy that TML fan prerequisite of "grittiness", so will never work his way into their hearts. On some level, TML fans have never gotten past the '70s style of play of big meaningless hits and staged fights. That's why we keep getting stuck with guys like Phaneuf and Clarkson, both of whom were known for that style of play at one point in their careers, but come here as castrati.


Im not trying to sell you anything. You replied with opinion versus the facts. Not a good way to handle things. Until you put up some facts that refute those numbers that he put up, its just your opinion. 330 goals. 793 games. Any hockey fan will say thats great numbers. Except a biased one.........


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

TA462 said:


> No thats not what happened. Lemieux owned the team, yes. He has owned it since 1999. Lemieux was the one that was actively looking to move the team because there was no new arena in the works. Balsillie wanted to buy the team and move it to Hamilton. When the Arena deal came through he withdrew his bid because he then couldn't move the team anymore. He then started selling season tickets to a team that was to be moved to Hamilton. He then tried to buy Nashville. He offered a ridiculous amount for them but was eventually turned down. Then he started the whole Coyotes fiasco. That's what got him black balled. He didn't own the Coyotes remember but the way he was throwing around money pissed off the other owners. They have the final say on who owns what believe it or not. NHL ownership is like a little boys club and Jim tried to buy his way into out. The Pittsburg thing had nothing to do with it.


That's kind of the way I remember it. While he was doing all that the market share of Blackberry was sinking daily. He is now managing his own team from his basement on this....


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

TA462 said:


> No thats not what happened.


It is what happened. It was 2006.
http://penguins.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=494839

It was Spring 2007 that the Preds deal was announced but early in the summer it was dead.

The Coyotes thing was spring 2009.

I think my precis of the events is pretty close to what went on even though the Balsillie side and other evidence is somewhat conflicting, and MacLean's magazine's article (not quite halfway down) recounts it:

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/why-balsillie-went-ballistic/

Balsillie had the bid in, thought he could move the team, as soon as he found out that he couldn't, it was done. There were other issues as well, but it was the 'no move' clause that was the killer and the Bettman negotiating thing as well.

The arena deal was still not done...Balsillie was *out* a few days after the conference call on the 11th of December, yet the arena deal was still not done December 22nd...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/sports/hockey/22penguins.html?_r=1&

The arena deal did not come until March 2007 (Balsillie was already chasing the Preds in March 2007). 

A HUGE Lemieux fan, I followed this story diligently at the time. I remember it like it was yesterday.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> Im not trying to sell you anything. You replied with opinion versus the facts. Not a good way to handle things. Until you put up some facts that refute those numbers that he put up, its just your opinion. 330 goals. 793 games. Any hockey fan will say thats great numbers. Except a biased one.........


haha...you want facts? I thought they were self evident. And in fairness, your side has only put up one stat. everything else ie a suppsoedly memorable but meaningless hit, along with the assessment of wrist/slapshots are just that ...opinion. My "opinion" back in the day, was that Borje Salming was such a great skater that he probably could have skated circles around Wayne Gretzky...but so what?
facts:
Only 2 All star appearances. That's partly to his credit, so you get a half point for it. But I still think its underwhelming for an "icon".
Zero cups.
Zero finals appearances.
HHOF. Nope. Been eligible for 12 yrs now....hmmm.....
Scoring titles? Hahaha.
In fact most of his accomplishments has an asterisk beside it "A great hitter...*for a smaller guy" "A good goal scorer..*for a guy who was really more of an enforcer...or *for a guy on a supposedly not great team"...blah, blah, blah.
icons don't have asterisks besides their names. Icons have titles, cups etc.

Face it, in the big scheme of things ie. outside the mecca of hockey that has had to set the bar increasingly low due to a culture of losing, ie as evidenced by all the pathetic pre-game honors ceremonies of late, Wendel was "just a guy".

So if you want to whine about bias, look in the mirror first, then come off your high horse.

now to temper my rant , again, Im not saying he was a bad player. I appreciate he had the gritty character (when he wasn't injured) that TMl fans love. And I respect that his total goals are very respectable. That said, the goals stat alone, if he didn't have that gritty character all too popular here, would have made him about as much of a legend in these parts as a Mogilny. People LOVED his STYLE. I get that. A guy that could put up good numbers and still be physical.
I just think the legendary status bestowed on him makes him over-rated in the grand scheme of things. and if words like "icon" are used, then I think that greatly dilutes the meaning of the word....Icon just doesn't mean that much if theres 500 of them. And I think the bare minimum for being an icon is to have led your team to at least 1 championship. _If Clark is an Icon, then what do you call a Bourque, Yzerman, Sakic etc? or are they in the same category to you? They sure as hell aren't to me...or likely 90% of the hockey world._
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Many iconic (IMO) players have never won a Championship and many more would never have won without being traded to a team that was headed that way (cough Ray Bourque cough). Adam Oates, Pat Lafontaine, Marcel Dionne (even another Leaf) Sittler - there are many. In the ultimate team game, a fantastic player cannot push his team over the top unless perhaps he is a goaltender _who will stop every shot_.

Pound for pound, Clark was pretty much the wolverine of the NHL. On a team that was absolute crap (once again, you can't choose your team's GM) that's iconic and memorable enough for me.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

So in other words if you arent Wayne, you are overrated. And as for winning the cup, how many guys won the cup, even mulitple times and never played for than 5 minutes a game? Some people just arent hockey fans. American much?.............


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Hmmm, I am way outside the Toronto area and I consider him iconic. Alot of great iconic players arent in the hall of fame..........


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

There you go. Definitely not an overrated player............


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

smorgdonkey said:


> It is what happened. It was 2006.
> http://penguins.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=494839
> 
> It was Spring 2007 that the Preds deal was announced but early in the summer it was dead.
> ...


Lemieux has said PUBLICLY numerous times that moving the franchise was NEVER going to happen. It was a ploy to get a new arena, THATS ALL. Lemieux has PUBLICLY said afterwards that he had no intention on even selling the team. Don't forget that the Mellon arena deal was going to expire in the 2010 season. Mario had all the chips fall into his lap at once. Lots of interest in the Penguins if they were for sale, no arena deal to stay in Pittsburg and a fan base that would have burned Pennsylvania to the ground if they were moved. It was a win win for him and he knew it. Like I said from the beginning, the Pens were never going to move. Read some of the stories that came out afterwards, don't quote news releases as they happened. Back then like you I thought they were going to be moved but once Mario spoke out about it later on the real truth came out. It was all a ploy for a new arena.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

TA462 said:


> Lemieux has said PUBLICLY numerous times that moving the franchise was NEVER going to happen. It was a ploy to get a new arena, THATS ALL. Lemieux has PUBLICLY said afterwards that he had no intention on even selling the team. Don't forget that the Mellon arena deal was going to expire in the 2010 season. Mario had all the chips fall into his lap at once. Lots of interest in the Penguins if they were for sale, no arena deal to stay in Pittsburg and a fan base that would have burned Pennsylvania to the ground if they were moved. It was a win win for him and he knew it. Like I said from the beginning, the Pens were never going to move. Read some of the stories that came out afterwards, don't quote news releases as they happened. Back then like you I thought they were going to be moved but once Mario spoke out about it later on the real truth came out. It was all a ploy for a new arena.


I don't doubt that when Mario said that he was thinking of moving the team that it was just to get the arena deal moving but when he accepted a $10 million dollar deposit from Balsillie, he was going to sell. 

The fact that he says now that he wouldn't have sold is purely to keep good relations with the fan base. If you think he wouldn't have taken the $185 million at the time? Come on. The lawyers forwarded the papers to Balsillie.

You never really hear about the deposit but if Balsillie would have signed the papers, he would have bought the team. The genius of Mario (or his advisors, etc.) was that it was a non-refundable deposit, so when Balsillie walked away, Mario kept the $10 million.

The fans wouldn't have burned Pennsylvania to the ground - there was hardly anyone at the games for a couple of years leading up to this. 

Anyway, it's up to you to believe what Mario says now as opposed to what was actually taking place at the time. That sale was an inch away from happening and if the stay 7 years clause hadn't been added, Balsillie would have bought and moved that team. Imagine having enough money to walk away from $10 million.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> I'd agree with that.
> 
> I'm not sure "icon" is really the proper word here anyway. An icon is something that is worshiped or revered as being representative of an ideal. I'd say there are _very_ few players who are true "icons". "Legend" is a better word. Is Wendel a legend? Certainly among Leafs fans. Beyond that? Probably not. Would he be considered one of the 100 greatest players of all time? No. One of the 500 greatest? Possibly.


exactly my point. thanks.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Perhaps some people have a different connotation of the word 'icon'?

One definition is "a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol or as worthy of veneration" and that is how I use the word. Wendel Clark fits that for me. Had he been drafted by another team, I am sure there would have been a better chance that he would have Stanley Cup rings and perhaps an even greater reputation.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> Perhaps some people have a different connotation of the word 'icon'?
> 
> One definition is "a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol or as worthy of veneration" and that is how I use the word. Wendel Clark fits that for me. Had he been drafted by another team, I am sure there would have been a better chance that he would have Stanley Cup rings and perhaps an even greater reputation.


I agree with that definition. but I don't see WC as earning it. Its the difference between Good and Great.
and I think the "what if..." excuses run a little tired, especially in Leafland.
I wonder, what if Wendel wasn't such a physical player? perhaps he wouldn't have been injured so much, and/or perhaps he would have scored more goals and perhaps TML would have at least made it to a SC Finals? or the opposite...who knows?
You can play that game all day long.
Its the toughest thing about trying to be a leaf fan....the excuses seem to get in the way of winning.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Diablo said:


> I wonder, what if Wendel wasn't such a physical player? perhaps he wouldn't have been injured so much,


When you display actions which are interpreted as showing or having heart, you open the 'icon' doors a little easier. When a 185 pounder plays 'with the heart of a 220 pounder' it is easy...unless the glasses one wears have lenses partially blocked by another team's logo - at least, that's the best way that I can describe it.


----------



## ThatGingerMojo (Jul 30, 2014)

Just a note on the Lemieux selling the Penguins thread. The Penguins still owed Mario a boat load of money that they could not pay from his playing days. He bought the team solely for the reason of recouping his salary losses. He would have taken the money and ran with it had the team been sold. Sugar coated bulls-t is exactly what he told the fans, and they ate it up. Now that the Pens are drawing a profit again, he is the happiest owner in hockey.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

ThatGingerMojo said:


> Just a note on the Lemieux selling the Penguins thread. The Penguins still owed Mario a boat load of money that they could not pay from his playing days. He bought the team solely for the reason of recouping his salary losses. He would have taken the money and ran with it had the team been sold. Sugar coated bulls-t is exactly what he told the fans, and they ate it up. Now that the Pens are drawing a profit again, he is the happiest owner in hockey.


I agree with that. I think, at the time, that if they weren't serious about selling, there would be no docs fwded to lawyers and no deposit accepted. I think Mario would have taken the money in a heartbeat and in retrospect may be very happy that he didn't sell but I think a pile of money at the time would have been preferable had he not known the ins and outs of ownership and $10 million was a nice 'tide me over' after Balsillie backed out.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Brad shows equal parts grease and heart...to reach iconic stature, the grease should be minimum and heart should be maximum.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

You need goals. Anyone can start a fight............


----------

