Second team in Toronto? (along with Vegas, Seattle, Quebec City)

[crazyperfectdevil]

http://www.si.com/nhl/2014/08/26/report-toronto-seattle-quebec-city-join-vegas-2017-nhl-expansion

sports illustrated is probably less than credible on such matters...but it's the offseason.

 

[Kin]

I was just saying that what the league needed was 80 more AHL players distributed among the teams.

 

[L K]

I was just saying that what the league needed was 80 more AHL players distributed among the teams.

From a pure gate-revenue standpoint, I think this is something that is workable on a local level, but yeah, the on-ice product is going to suffer.

What does adding 4 teams to the league do to their new playoff/conference format.  Toronto/Quebec would have be Eastern Conference with Vegas/Seattle in the West.  That would put 18 teams in the East for 8 playoff spots versus 16 teams in the West for 8 playoff spots.  That's a poor distribution when one side has a 50% of making the playoffs and the other doesn't.  They should be fixing that.

The Leafs might as well lock JVR, Kadri, Bernier into long-term extensions this year because I think a bunch of 3rd line players are about to start making 7 million dollars a year.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Maybe one of these teams will take Clarkson in the expansion draft!

 

[Kin]

I was just saying that what the league needed was 80 more AHL players distributed among the teams.

From a pure gate-revenue standpoint, I think this is something that is workable on a local level, but yeah, the on-ice product is going to suffer.

What does adding 4 teams to the league do to their new playoff/conference format.  Toronto/Quebec would have be Eastern Conference with Vegas/Seattle in the West.  That would put 18 teams in the East for 8 playoff spots versus 16 teams in the West for 8 playoff spots.  That's a poor distribution when one side has a 50% of making the playoffs and the other doesn't.  They should be fixing that.

Seems relatively easy enough to fix. Just move Columbus back.

Anyways, 1.4 billion in expansion fees, assuming the Leafs wouldn't get a bigger chunk of the 2nd Toronto team's money would work to 46.6 million per team. However if the leaguewide revenues that get split evenly work out to about 30 million per team, which seems reasonable as the Rogers deal will work out to about half that on it's own, then splitting them evenly with the four new teams would result in around 4.5 million less per year per team.

 

[cw]

Certainly doesn't shock me.

The Bell-Rogers ownership of the Leafs is perfect for adding a second team to Toronto by splitting that group.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2014/08/26/21900441.html
In May, Las Vegas officials broke ground on the building of a 20,000-seat multi-sport arena to be completed in spring 2016.

Construction on a $400 million, 18,000-seat arena in Quebec City is underway with a projected opening date of Sept. 2015. The rink is being built as part of a public-private partnership between the city and Quebecor Media, owner of QMI Agency, Sun Media and Sun News Network.

Prospective NHL owner reaches 'non-binding agreement' with Seattle arena developer
http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/554793

Hard to imagine Bell-Rogers having a problem getting a second arena built in the Toronto area. So it looks like they'll have arenas to play in. Vegas might be the only questionable market but like Phoenix, it's population is growing like a weed.

As for 80 more AHLers, I doubt half the '67 Cup winning Leafs could crack the NHL coming to camp with their beer bellies. The players of today are bigger, faster, stronger, better conditioned, better equipped and better coached.

 

[Kin]

As for 80 more AHLers, I doubt half the '67 Cup winning Leafs could crack the NHL coming to camp with their beer bellies. The players of today are bigger, faster, stronger, better conditioned, better equipped and better coached.

I confess, I don't follow. I don't think there's anyway to dispute that this would add 13% more players to the league, all of whom aren't currently good enough to be there.

 

[Redleaf]

Toronto Star Sports ‏@StarSports  9m
NHL denies expansion report, including a second @NHL team in #Toronto. #Leafs http://on.thestar.com/VQwu1n

 

[ZBBM]

Toronto Star Sports ‏@StarSports  9m
NHL denies expansion report, including a second @NHL team in #Toronto. #Leafs http://on.thestar.com/VQwu1n

In a related story, Tim Leiweke denied that he was going anywhere.

 

[Kin]

Toronto Star Sports ‏@StarSports  9m
NHL denies expansion report, including a second @NHL team in #Toronto. #Leafs http://on.thestar.com/VQwu1n

In a related story, Tim Leiweke denied that he was going anywhere.

To be fair though, this would be a pretty massive decision by the NHL to just about come out of nowhere and get broken by guys outside of the traditional media.

I'm not saying it's not happening but I'm way more suspicious of this than something reported by Elliotte Friedman about hockey in Toronto.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Other than the dilution of talent, this was along the same lines as I was thinking too if this were to happen:

@67sound 

I?m looking forward to the 2022 lockout. ?NHL demands 60% of HRR to ensure survival of struggling teams.?

 

[bustaheims]

While I happen to believe a 2nd GTA team would have definitely potential for success, the whole expansion thing is purely speculation right now. I also don't think they'll add more than 2 teams in the near future - and at least one of those teams will be in Seattle or Las Vegas, very possibly both. As LK points out, the league is more likely looking to balance the conferences and divisions first.

 

[WalterSobchak]

It would certainly be interesting to see the population of Southern Ontario and to which direction they would lean in terms of who they will support. Any guesses on where the second team would be based? Markham? Since that was the rumour of the day back about a year ago or so..or maybe play out of the ACC until a new arena is built...

I am not comfortable with a team in Vegas. Seattle I have no issue with or with Quebec getting the Nordiques back. Of course this is just some writers big story, so it can all be pish posh, but I tend to believe Tony Gallagher.

As for watering down the league, it's been happening for decades, what with the influx of US College players, so why worry now?

 

[Kin]

As for watering down the league, it's been happening for decades, what with the influx of US College players, so why worry now?

I don't know what you mean regarding college players but to answer the question, I think there's something different going on here. The first big round of expansion, I think, was sparked because while 6 teams may have worked in the 40's and 50's, the post-war population boom made it so there were more good players than there were NHL jobs(which is probably what made the WHA viable as well). Likewise, I think the second big round of expansion in the 80's/90's was also around the same time as the fall of the iron curtain and so there was a good deal more players available to fill the existing jobs.

Now, not only isn't there any new pool of players to draw upon(youth participation in hockey is dropping, not increasing) but the existence of the KHL means that there are a number of european players good enough for the NHL who aren't playing here.

Not to mention it's cumulative. If it's already a diluted talent pool then that's an argument for stopping, not making it worse.

 

[cw]

As for 80 more AHLers, I doubt half the '67 Cup winning Leafs could crack the NHL coming to camp with their beer bellies. The players of today are bigger, faster, stronger, better conditioned, better equipped and better coached.

I confess, I don't follow. I don't think there's anyway to dispute that this would add 13% more players to the league, all of whom aren't currently good enough to be there.

And that's true.

But I think taking that view exclusively flirts with the ostrich with it's head in the sand. 

The quality of that AHL player today is significantly superior to days gone by. A lot of those guys get called up and fill in admirably.

If you've got four cities that can fill seats to watch them and be entertained, then you've got an entertainment mandate, an improved broadcasting footprint and an improved business. And with that, you're growing the sport along with the league - which for hockey I think is critical for it's longer term survival relative to other sports because it's an expensive game to play.

Why Gary Bettman was right about hockey in Phoenix

Hockey?s Growth in the United States: 2003-2013

Hockey?s Growth in the United States ? 1990-2010
So there you have it. As the NHL?s popularity continues to grow in each market, so does hockey participation. As I said, population growth certainly plays a role, but to see the high percentages of growth is a testament to the impact the game is having across the country.

The growth in hockey registration in Canada, US and Europe/Russia since 2000 when the NHL last expanded exceeds 13% additional NHLers handily. The growth in U20 registered hockey players is 16.8% just between 2009 and 2013. For example:
http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/839306-membership-statistics
http://www.iihf.com/iihf-home/the-iihf/survey-of-players.html
link to article with 2009 data
It's hard to project a grossly noticeable dilution of NHL talent in 2017 with the grassroots growing the game as it has. Arguably, they'll be playing the game even better -  shortly after expansion.

I watched the original six league and the players of today are vastly superior hockey players. I think it's part of the reason we don't see the hockey superstars of today separating themselves from the pack as much as they once did - because the 2nd-4th liners are so much better.

When they quickly expanded the league from 6 teams to 16 in six years and also had the WHA competing with the NHL, we saw a degradation in how the sport got played. No question. But I think that's long been corrected and surpassed.

Beyond a brief growing period for an expansion team to get competitive, I think they can add these four teams with barely a blip in the growing talent pool and how well the game is currently executed at the NHL level.

 

[Kin]

When they quickly expanded the league from 6 teams to 16 in six years and also had the WHA competing with the NHL, we saw a degradation in how the sport got played. No question. But I think that's long been corrected and surpassed.

Beyond a brief growing period for an expansion team to get competitive, I think they can add these four teams with barely a blip in the growing talent pool and how well the game is currently executed at the NHL level.

The problem with that is that despite how I phrased it initially, the dilution of talent isn't as top down as I made it sound. These 80 new players aren't just going to be on the four new teams, they're going to be spread throughout the league. The worst #1 centre in the league will now be the #34 centre in the league, rather than #30. This will lead to worse #1 goalies and #1 defensemen and #2 centres and so on and so forth. In a league that is already devoid of top to bottom great teams, this will make everyone noticeably weaker.

The league, I think, could really stand to let the reverse happen. Let teams get stronger. Try, at least, to bring back some of the era where individual teams were actually great compared to their competitors.

 

[Tigger]

If the nhl added 4 new teams the cap ceiling would be diluted too, no?

 

[Peter D.]

I think there has to be some truth behind this despite the NHL's denial. The fact there are arenas being built in Quebec and Las Vegas as we speak would lead to this belief.

 

[hockeyfan1]

If the NHL did choose to cash in on what SportsBusinessNews.com reported would be roughly US$1.4 billion in expansion fees by expanding to 34 teams by the centennial season of 2017-18, a second team in Toronto could play in the Western Conference. The size of the Toronto market has long made it an interesting possibility, whether the expansion team shares Air Canada Centre with the Maple Leafs or has its own arena.

Getting to 32 teams ? 16 in the East and 16 in the West ? makes for better playoff math and easier scheduling and would also tie the NHL with the NFL as the leagues with the most teams. Going to 34 would surpass North America?s most popular professional sports league.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nhl-denies-las-vegas-expansion-report/

 

[cw]

When they quickly expanded the league from 6 teams to 16 in six years and also had the WHA competing with the NHL, we saw a degradation in how the sport got played. No question. But I think that's long been corrected and surpassed.

Beyond a brief growing period for an expansion team to get competitive, I think they can add these four teams with barely a blip in the growing talent pool and how well the game is currently executed at the NHL level.

The problem with that is that despite how I phrased it initially, the dilution of talent isn't as top down as I made it sound. These 80 new players aren't just going to be on the four new teams, they're going to be spread throughout the league. The worst #1 centre in the league will now be the #34 centre in the league, rather than #30. This will lead to worse #1 goalies and #1 defensemen and #2 centres and so on and so forth. In a league that is already devoid of top to bottom great teams, this will make everyone noticeably weaker.

The league, I think, could really stand to let the reverse happen. Let teams get stronger. Try, at least, to bring back some of the era where individual teams were actually great compared to their competitors.

The talent pool of the U20 youth they will draw from by 2017 will have grown substantially more since their last expansion than the 13% of new players they'll add. I'd guess in the order of 50% or so.

In fairness to all the kids taking the shot with very, very slim odds, it's not unreasonable to maintain something resembling similar chances on the basis of order of magnitude to make it. By 2017, they'll be roughly 50% more kids than 2000 and 0% more NHL jobs without expansion. At some point, something ought to give there. If it doesn't, a bunch of that talent will go to the KHL or Europe to help those leagues.

I think that's part of the reason #1 centers are not as dominant. The overall quality of hockey players throughout the league is getting better.

The price fans of existing team will "pay" short term is the arguably steady rise in hockey ability due to a talent pool that has grown substantially will get interrupted. But, coming out the other side, the expansion grows the talent pool for down the road.

So I see "spending" some "excess" of their growing talent pool as an investment for the good of the game and the NHL. For a few years, hockey execution won't improve quite as much or it might step back briefly a little. But longer term, it's very likely to bear substantial fruit.

USA used to have about 10-15% of the young players Canada had in the 50s/60s/70s and provided 2% of the players to the NHL. Since then, Canada's grown the game within it's own country substantially. But the USA now has about 69% of the young players Canada has
http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_PlayerNationalities.php
and now provides 25% of the league's players while Canada has fallen from providing 98% of the league talent to 52%.
As the studies show, NHL expansion to the US has a ton to do with that growth and with the US closing the gap on Canada.

From a business perspective, we have:
$1.4 Billion in expansion fees
$2.0 Billion roughly to build four rinks
$5.5 Billion in increased league revenues over 5 years
$1.0 Billion increased investment in grassroots hockey around those teams (minimal guess over 5 years)
===============
$9.9 billion spent benefiting the NHL

The entire NHL is currently valued at $11 billion plus change. So that's a lot of "investment" money for the league's benefit. It's a no brainer financially on most levels. If they've got folks lined up to spend that sort of dough, they're crazy to ignore it with one caveat: they do not project the NA economy to be mired in the toilet.

I think the cap system has much, much more to do with the competitive balance we see. I don't think the lack of a dynasty is a measure of the talent playing the game. The talent to play the game at a high level is still in the league and improving - it's just spread around more evenly. The cap system just makes it much harder to build and sustain a dynasty.

When I watch the U20 WJCs or the Memorial Cup, the overall talent is not NHL caliber but some of those games are pretty darn good to watch - better than a big bunch of NHL games I've seen. It's a good game to watch and the talent level playing it isn't everything.