Official: NHL expanding to Vegas for '17-18

[mudberry]

Las Vegas sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Are they counting on Northerners who moved there to be fans, or tourists? Either way it doesn't seem like enough of a fan base to be successful. I can't imagine Las Vegas doing better than Florida or Phoenix. Then again the NHL probably has lots of smart people analyzing all of the scenarios for the best location and came up with Vegas for reasons that will never be fully explained. I hope this is all bs.

[wjag]

I went with the Q and other. My other would be Nova Scotia.

[Huckleberry]

Went with seatle and kansas because they round the western conference more nicely.

 

If the nordiques come back they would have to move either columbus, toronto or detroit out west wich they won't like.

 

If las vegas gets a team, it will most likely be the coyotes.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Heimdall

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I went with the Q and other. My other would be Nova Scotia.

 

:flirt:

 

I would love a team in QC and also here.

 

Halifax is thinking about getting a CFL expansion team, but the issue is a stadium. The same reason we missed out on hosting the FIFA WWC next year ... no stadium. The city can't make up it's mind to spend the $ on a football / soccer stadium. No way we ever build an NHL sized hockey arena. The Metro Centre seats about 11,000 for hockey.

[Hoss]

 

No they currently don't have an owner or an arena. The draft details for the mcdavid draft will be a cluster. Believe what you want but I'll be shocked if it happens by 2015

 

The arena will not open til 2016. Just so everyone knows.

 

They don't currently have an owner. But they obviously will if they apply for expansion. So I don't understand why you're mentioning that.

They don't currently have an arena. But it's being built, as I said... They may have a temporary one for a season as somebody said above.

The actual draft details would be worked out easily.

 

 

It's one more thing to do in the city that never sleeps.

 

Sheesh, you already relocated them to NY before they even started.

[Taro T]

 

the owners have to approve it and there is currently no proof that Vegas would sustain the season tickets needed for a team. If it happens by 2015 I'll be amazed.

 

Though I'd expect any expansion to be at least 1-1/2 years away, the Panthers & Ducks got brought into the league very rapidly. Just because we hadn't heard anything about expansion doesn't mean it hasn't been in the works.

 

 

I don't think Portland is a real big contender, but I threw them in the poll because they've been mentioned.

 

 

 

What reason do the owners have to block it?

If Paul Allen ends up the Pacific NW team owner, I'd put it at least at 50/50 that he puts the team in his building in Portland.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Taro T

[LGR4GM]

They don't currently have an owner. But they obviously will if they apply for expansion. So I don't understand why you're mentioning that.

They don't currently have an arena. But it's being built, as I said... They may have a temporary one for a season as somebody said above.

The actual draft details would be worked out easily.

 

 

 

Sheesh, you already relocated them to NY before they even started.

I am saying it because these would all be things the NHL wants in place before expansion occurs and a team is drafted. So my original point of highly unlikely it occurs in time for 2015 still stands.

 

Also I can think of a pair of minority owners who definitely want to see expansion post 2015/16 season.

[ddaryl]

Seattle shoudl be the 1st choice. Good rivalry waiting to form with Vancouver No other Hockey team in the North West USA, and lots of East coast transplants that love hockey.. me included. Great city too !!!

[nfreeman]

I don't think the NHL is going to rush into anything. Vegas won't get a team until there is a solid, well-capitalized ownership group in place. Still, if one emerges, I wouldn't be surprised to see a team there. Vegas has a new arena, a ton of money and is a growing market generally.

 

Seattle won't get a team until there is a new arena. My understanding is that that won't happen without an NBA team locked in -- so I think Seattle is well down the road.

 

KC has an arena, but I don't think they have a strong ownership group that is interested in bleeding cash until their hockey team takes root. I could be mistaken on that though.

 

I don't think the NHL is particularly interested in going back to QC as it wouldn't do anything for the league financially. It could happen, and it would be great from a fan perspective, but I'm skeptical.

 

Bottom line: IMHO this is a bunch of sound and fury. I'm highly dubious that there will be a new team in 2015-16.

[Stoner]

OP, you forgot Buffalo, New York.

[Iron Crotch]

We talk hockey economics and expansion in one of my courses and after working through the financials, the majority of students always go with Houston, a city that is missing from the above list. Houston is the 5th biggest city (MSA) in the country and has the 2nd most Fortune-500 headquarters of any U.S. city. And, is one of the fastest growing cities. It'd have a natural rivalry with Dallas and the Toyota Center has a ton of luxury suites and is NHL-ready. No hockey culture there, of course, but the size of the market is hard to ignore.

[TrueBlueGED]

I'm with Freeman: I'd be rely surprised to see expansion for next season. If expansion were highly likely, it would also make the timing on the lottery changes seem quite odd.

[Stoner]

Is it all about the almighty dollar? (Of course it is.) Aud, green courtesy phone, Aud. Aud, please report to the expansion thread. Aud, call your answering service.

 

Does expansion make for a better game? Is there enough talent to support more teams? Or will the talent level be (further?) diluted? Will more teams in the places suggested mean more great hockey rivalries, more great arena experiences?

Edited August 27, 2014 by PASabreFan

[Taro T]

We talk hockey economics and expansion in one of my courses and after working through the financials, the majority of students always go with Houston, a city that is missing from the above list. Houston is the 5th biggest city (MSA) in the country and has the 2nd most Fortune-500 headquarters of any U.S. city. And, is one of the fastest growing cities. It'd have a natural rivalry with Dallas and the Toyota Center has a ton of luxury suites and is NHL-ready. No hockey culture there, of course, but the size of the market is hard to ignore.

If the NHL is dumb enough to put a team in Houston, it will be moved/ contracted w/in 8 years.

 

There is absolutely no way on God's green earth that that city should get a team.

 

They supported the Aeros when the Howes were there but only at EXTREMELY cheap ticket prices. The city didn't even support the Eulers when they were going to the playoffs year in & year out. (Unless the Stealers or Pokes were coming to town, Randall's always bought the last few 1,000 seats in a 65k seat stadium and the 4th largest metro area in the country.) Football is king there and the Eulers left town. I'd been to a lot of Lastros games where the Dome was 1/4 full at best.

 

Putting a team (which would likely have to share digs w/ the Rockets) in Houston would be the stupidest thing the league has EVER done. (That's an impressive feat, as there are a lot of challengers for that title.)

[LastPommerFan]

I really want at least one team added to the East, so the Red Wings can go back to the west where they belong. If the time zone thing is really that tough, I'm sure detroit could petition the State to go CST.

[Taro T]

I don't think the NHL is going to rush into anything. Vegas won't get a team until there is a solid, well-capitalized ownership group in place. Still, if one emerges, I wouldn't be surprised to see a team there. Vegas has a new arena, a ton of money and is a growing market generally.

 

Seattle won't get a team until there is a new arena. My understanding is that that won't happen without an NBA team locked in -- so I think Seattle is well down the road.

 

KC has an arena, but I don't think they have a strong ownership group that is interested in bleeding cash until their hockey team takes root. I could be mistaken on that though.

 

I don't think the NHL is particularly interested in going back to QC as it wouldn't do anything for the league financially. It could happen, and it would be great from a fan perspective, but I'm skeptical.

 

Bottom line: IMHO this is a bunch of sound and fury. I'm highly dubious that there will be a new team in 2015-16.

Toss in the issues that come w/ a non-English speaking monolingual city, and I just don't see them getting another franchise. The league has officially blackballed Saskatoon and Hamilton in the past. Somehow I see an 8 ball in QC's future as well.

[shrader]

I'm with Freeman: I'd be rely surprised to see expansion for next season. If expansion were highly likely, it would also make the timing on the lottery changes seem quite odd.

 

Except that the lottery changes don't really set in until 2016. One could argue that they left the 2015 lottery mostly unchanged because they knew expansion was coming and that team would be handed the #1 pick. They didn't want to institute the full system now because of that off chance that the worst team could get screwed and fall all the way to 5th (or even 6th if they were to add 2 teams right now).

 

I don't put much stock into this whole discussion of expansion for the 2015-16 season, but what I just said above seems like a legitimate argument for the lottery changes.

[frissonic]

I love how Salt Lake is completely out of the discussion. Why shouldn't we get a franchise?

 

Population would support it.

 

At least two arenas to select from (Energy Solutions Arena [former Delta Center], and Maverik Center which could easily be expanded to accomodate an NHL team).

 

Relative geographic proximity to Denver and Phoenix (or SJ, Anaheim, or LA) would allow for a great rivalry down the road.

 

I just don't get why SLC is always overlooked.

[SwampD]

I love how Salt Lake is completely out of the discussion. Why shouldn't we get a franchise?

 

Population would support it.

 

At least two arenas to select from (Energy Solutions Arena [former Delta Center], and Maverik Center which could easily be expanded to accomodate an NHL team).

 

Relative geographic proximity to Denver and Phoenix (or SJ, Anaheim, or LA) would allow for a great rivalry down the road.

 

I just don't get why SLC is always overlooked.

Would they be able to sell you beer at the arena or would you have to join some club first?

[IKnowPhysics]

If I'm league Commissioner and I don't have to expand *right now,* I wait for Seatlle to build a stadium. Then expand to QC.

 

If I gotta expand immediately, I give the team to QC, who's just about stadium ready. Then wait for Seattle to drag their feet.

 

Dolla dolla bill y'all.

[cdexchange]

What would be REALLY awesome but would never happen is if there were 16 teams in the US and 16 teams in Canada, and they divided the conferences that way also. So every Cup final would be US vs. Canada. Where can I sign up for that?

[IKnowPhysics]

Also, I've written lengthy posts before about expansion in the US (thread didn't consider Canada) here and here.

 

TL;DR:

Maybe: Houston, Kansas City

Maybe not: Milwaukee, Sacramento, Indianapolis

Hell no: Las Vegas, Salt Lake

 

 

 

Downtown Milwaukee is VERY close to the 90 mile radius from the United Center. I think it's definitely a market that would embrace a new NHL team, but I question whether the metro Milwaukee area, being only 1.7M people, is a town that has enough high-end luxury advertising and spectating dollars to support all four major sports (Bucks, Brewers, and essentially Packers). They'd probably grab the attention/money of a lot of the state of Wisconsin (some just to spite the Wild and the Blackhawks), but Wisconsin seems to be pretty hockey-happy with college (Badgers), juniors (Gamblers), and the AHL (Admirals).

 

I HATE the idea of Las Vegas, and it's not just a well-founded anti-southern hockey bias. I have a hard time believing that a Las Vegas fan base would be well rooted in the community and that the team would not just be a marketing attraction for tourists. I know people actually live in LV, but most major corporate sponsors, obviously, would be tourism dollars. That, and that town is over-saturated with entertainment attractions to distract sports spectating dollars. No major sports teams have taken root there, despite the existence of population and wealth, and that's likely for a reason.

 

Salt Lake City only has 1.1M in its metropolitan area. Probably a good spot for Western expansion by the AHL, unless SLC is surprisingly NUTS about hockey, like Buffalo-nuts about hockey. Hard to believe.

 

Kansas City has a good chance at a team. The metro area has 2.1M people. The Sprint Center opened in 2007 and isn't in use (but it only seats 17,500 for hockey- marginal). KC already has the Royals and the Chiefs, so whether the town could support another major team might be a little questionable. I'm not sure how popular hockey is in Missouri outside of St Louis.

 

Houston, being the 4th largest city in the US, is an enormous TV market ($$$$, Bettman = 8-D). The Aeros seem to do well and hockey seems to have taken root surprisingly well in Dallas. The city has a lot of large corporate sponsor possibilities (oil money). There might some distraction/money-competition from the three other major sports teams (Royals, Texans, Rockets). The Toyota Center seats 17,800 for hockey and is the home of Rockets and Aeros (probably movable). On paper, like I'm sure Phoenix did, it looks like a solid prospect, but this hockey-in-the-south thing is far from a sure bet. I can see why the availability of huge, rich cities like Houston make it hard for Bettman to do the right thing and put hockey back in Winnipeg or QC.

 

Sacramento, for the same reasons as the more populous San Diego, seems like AHL expansion territory. There's a lot of people and money, but hockey in California is a surely-but-slowly growing endeavor. Sacramento is also almost exactly 90 miles from San Jose. The upside is that with the Sacramento Kings departing for Orange County, Sacramento has an open arena, no other major sports teams, and likely a large number people hungry for pro sports, albeit not necessarily hockey-crazy.

 

Indianapolis is also another decent candidate. It's a large TV market (2M people + rest of Indiana) and a midwestern hockey climate. But the HUGE detractor is that there's no arena suitable for an NHL team. The Conseco Field House could be used temporarily (it seats 14,400 for hockey) while a new arena is being built. There would be competition with the Pacers, Colts, and motor sports.

 

Las Vegas' population has been exploding with no end in sight. Maybe a franchise could get in early, endear the people, and ride that wave until it's fanbase is cemented as LV's population reaches towards four million people. But currently I'm not sure if even LV can financially support endless distraction, especially if that distraction doesn't have tits or semiannual cast changes.

 

One market I overlooked somewhat is Seattle. It's 110+ miles from Vancouver, setting it up as a perfect border battle. The market is huge (3.5M+) and growing; it's basically much the largest US market without a team (not counting downtown SF near SJ and the Inland Empire of LA). The downside is that the only arena suitable for hockey is the KeyArena, which is totally unsuitable for hockey (built in 1962, 11,000 capacity for hockey, and the worst sight lines imaginable). The arena used to be home to the SuperSonics (NBA) and the Thunderbirds (WHL), but both have left; they left at least in part because they couldn't renovate or build a new stadium. The only tenants left are a little D-I NCAAB school, a WNBA team, and roller derby. Laughable.

 

If the SuperSonics' departure served as a big enough embarrassment, maybe Seattle could straighten its ###### out and build a new building. If they did that, I'm sure it would make them the new #1 US destination for an NHL franchise on the go (and likely another NBA franchise).

 

Since that ######'s three years old already, maybe it's time for an update.

Edited August 27, 2014 by IKnowPhysics

[TrueBlueGED]

Except that the lottery changes don't really set in until 2016. One could argue that they left the 2015 lottery mostly unchanged because they knew expansion was coming and that team would be handed the #1 pick. They didn't want to institute the full system now because of that off chance that the worst team could get screwed and fall all the way to 5th (or even 6th if they were to add 2 teams right now).

 

I don't put much stock into this whole discussion of expansion for the 2015-16 season, but what I just said above seems like a legitimate argument for the lottery changes.

 

Well, presumably the lottery changes were enacted to deter tanking and/or a bunch of cranky GMs wanted a better chance at McEichel. But if those players weren't going to be up for grabs, putting some changes in for 2015 but the first pick not actually being up for grabs anyway...just doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Makes me think that 2015 expansion is very tenuous, at best.

[shrader]

Well, presumably the lottery changes were enacted to deter tanking and/or a bunch of cranky GMs wanted a better chance at McEichel. But if those players weren't going to be up for grabs, putting some changes in for 2015 but the first pick not actually being up for grabs anyway...just doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Makes me think that 2015 expansion is very tenuous, at best.

 

The 2015 lottery changes really don't make much sense at all. I'm not sure how these minor percentage changes this year somehow bridge the gap to the new system. I could see the tinfoil hat types supporting the idea I just threw out there, otherwise, the change just seems like a way to give the media something to write about.

[IKnowPhysics]

Milwaukee - no change.

Las Vegas - improved slightly. Population growth and big-money sponsorship still doesn't quite outweigh non-traditional market and the fierce entertainment competition. That said, it can't be any worse than Florida, and if new owners can get season ticket holders, they might be able to spark a new desert revolution. I also think I've been underrating the travel fan base to this town. I think people would go to Vegas to watch their home team play. It's not enough to rely on, but it's a few percentage points of revenue.

SLC - no change.

KC - no change.

Houston - my outlook is more down-turned. The three competing sports teams make it look like a difficult prospect. Especially when competing markets in more traditional locations don't have year-round (read: three) pro leagues.

Sacramento - the Kings are staying. The outlook is poor.

Indianapolis - not sure that hockey could usurp or compete with NBA in the Hoosier state. Possible but not very attractive.

Seattle - hype is getting spun up about Seattle. The 14th largest TV market doesn't have a major pro sports team between the Superbowl and the MLB season. And the fans are pretty pissed they lost the Sonics.

Edited August 27, 2014 by IKnowPhysics