League Business

[rikster]

^ Also, I HATE expansion drafts... and just when we were getting some depth too.

I agree with you, but it will be hard for the league and the players to say no....

As it stands the NHL is only in 22 US markets when you consider that 7 of its teams are based in Canada and 3 are in the New York region as compared to the other major sports who are in 30-32 US markets...

Then you have the very succesful expansion into Seattle and Vegas....

Then you have to consider the bump in future tv and corporate sponsorship deals...

As far as diluting talent or depth, I look at it as a half full glass because I had thought that once the league got to 30 teams it would be looking to add another 6 to 10 over seas and if it did that then there would be concern that many of the elite Euro players would be enticed to go back to Europe ...

If there was a team in Stocholm, would EP want to resign in Vancouver or Sweden type of thing...

The longer they are looking to expand in the US the longer it will be before they start looking across the pond...

Take care...

[UWSaint]

Please no.

No more watering down the talent level.

"Watering down the talent level" is a pretty weak argument. Of course if you had 8 teams in the league, each team would be unbelievably talented!

But the league's more talented than ever right now.

In my view, the modern NHL began when the Eastern Bloc fell.

It ushered in a flux of talent from the former Soviet Union and former Czechoslovakia.

At the same time, the professionalization of the game increased -- the athleticism and fitness of players dramatically increased. And there was a revolution in equipment, which enabled far more effective goaltending. National programs then improved dramatically -- USA and Sweden probably leading the way (compared to what they were).

While other nations improve the quality of their players through their national programs (and otherwise), Canada has maintained a lead. It is shrinking, but since the US won its first IIHF U-20 junior tourney (it now has 6), Canada has won 10.

Let's look at 2003-2004, the year Parise led the US to its first junior victory. That season was 3 years after the NHL completed its 1990s era expansion, which saw the league add the Sharks, Sens, Lightning, Panthers, Ducks in the first part of the decade and Predators, Wild, Blue Jackets and Thrashers at the end of the decade. In that season, 548 Canadians played in the NHL. (Before that second wave -- in the first full season after the 94-95 lockout, 533 Canadians played in the 26 team league. And before that 1990s expansion started, in 1990-91, the last full season before the USSR fell (though a handful of Russians and Czechs were here), there were 544 Canadians.

In other words, the rapid expansion of the NHL in the 1990s had no material effect on the number of Canadians in the league. Canada was the indisputably dominant international force in juniors during the 1990s. It is safe to say the quality of Canadian players was not declining. But Canadians did not did not increase there numbers in the NHL between 1990 and 2003 despite 9 more teams being added to the league because the NHL was drawing its players from a much larger market of players -- both in numbers and from nations who had upped their game.

And, as mentioned above, while Canadians have not dominated international hockey in the past 20 years, they still produce more of the best hockey players on the planet than any other nation. But in the past 20 years, the NHL has added only 2 teams. And last season, only 434 Canadians played in the NHL. Still the best hockey player producing nation in the world -- but with about 50 more NHL player jobs available as compared to 23 years ago, Canadians are down 100 players.

I don't think Canada's putting out worse players -- in fact, with improvements in fitness and professionalism, I expect the 500 best Canadians today are far better than the 500 best Canadians 3 decades ago (and certainly 4 decades ago). But the fact is USA and Sweden are producing a ton more NHL caliber players. And there have also been increases from Finland and there are a team's worth of guys from other countries who weren't part of the eastern block. (The former Eastern Bloc's totals peaked a while back -- the KHL (especially in its early years) provided a quicker path to money for Russians and other Eastern Europeans, and the transition to North America was always a little harder on these players than the Scandinavian and Finnish peers. Plus, I don't think the national programs from the east have improved much in the past 20 years).

The point is, if you want the relative talent of the pre 1990s NHL expansion, you could probably add about 6 or 7 teams to today's NHL. Adding 2 more team 4 or 5 years from now (which is what's on the table) is still going to leave a far better game than we had at the start of this GDHTB.

EDIT -- source for nationality from Quant Hockey (https://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/nationa ... stats.html).

[UWSaint]

Is there ever serious talk of another team in Toronto? While I understand that its better to have a new market than add another team to an existing market, if you were going to double up a market, that would be the one. There has to be a large enough group of anti-leaves in the Toronto metro area to make for a spirited rivarly. And its not like an expansion team would have to do much to quickly be as good....

[BoS]

Solid retort as usual, UW.

I would argue the only real lull in talent throughout the league took place during the beginning of the 21st century. Between 1991 and 2000, the league expanded from 21 to 30 teams. Even with the influx of former Soviet countries, the talent pool was lacking beyond most teams 2nd lines.

While it should be acknowledged that this era coincided with clutch/grab/trap/weak side lock hockey which generated a really poor brand of entertainment for the better part of a decade, I still feel the league expanded too many teams during the 90’s.

Having said all this, adding two more teams over the next half dozen years will not impact the overall talent pool. It could be argued the NHL is the most internationally represented pro league in North America, of the big 4.

[BoS]

Is there ever serious talk of another team in Toronto? While I understand that its better to have a new market than add another team to an existing market, if you were going to double up a market, that would be the one. There has to be a large enough group of anti-leaves in the Toronto metro area to make for a spirited rivarly. And its not like an expansion team would have to do much to quickly be as good....

Well talk certainly has heated up over the past week with Rogers buying out Bells 37.5% stake in the Maple Leaves S&E.

[Topper]

Is there ever serious talk of another team in Toronto? While I understand that its better to have a new market than add another team to an existing market, if you were going to double up a market, that would be the one. There has to be a large enough group of anti-leaves in the Toronto metro area to make for a spirited rivarly. And its not like an expansion team would have to do much to quickly be as good....

The leaves have been quick to veto any team in their non compete sphere. Sabres squeaked in, new stadium (Copps Centre) built years ago in Hamilton was specifically designed to garner an NHL expansion bid but was squashed by the leaves.

I think a new team in that market would be like a Lakers/Clippers scenario with fans who have multiple generation support for the leaves. Great grandpa, grandpa, pop and the new kid all have leaves blood.

I also don't know if Toronto has the corporate support for a second team. Who is going to be buying up those box seats to gift tickets to employees and clients? That has been the big stumbling block a Nordique revival has always faced. It was something that hit the Canucks when the stock markets crashed in 2008 even though the on ice product was gaining steam and there was a wait list for season's tickets.

[UWSaint]

While it should be acknowledged that this era coincided with clutch/grab/trap/weak side lock hockey which generated a really poor brand of entertainment for the better part of a decade, I still feel the league expanded too many teams during the 90’s.

The height of clutch and grab was between the 1994 and 2004 lockouts. The Devils won with it in the post-lockout season, and it took over the league in the next couple seasons and for the rest of the period -- because teams emulate the winners. Clutch and grab ended (or diminished) after that 2004-2005 missed season, and it ended by changing the way the game was called. And while the goal scoring results were somewhat modest, this was also the start of the cap era which spread talent and made it impossible to put together all star teams. Ultimately, scoring would dip to near clutch and grab levels in the early 2010s, but I think this was for reasons other than clutch and grab -- absurd save percentages drove a lot of it. In recent years, scoring is back up a bit. The absurd save percentages are no longer, and that's probably a component of some equipment rules, tactical improvement in "how to beat modern goaltending," and slightly improved sticks.

What's interesting to me about the clutch and grab era is that the game was being called similarly to the higher flying pre-lockout game. My sense is that players improved in the 1990s even with the expansion -- and stable "Canadian" numbers over the era would support that it didn't get worse. The big improvement, though, came from increased professionalism of the players and clubs. In the 80's, you could latch on to any player, but there were so many players on the ice that couldn't keep up with the best. Not just the goons, but every team was icing guys that were not world class athletes (in addition to the goons whose primary function wasn't to score or keep the other team from scoring....). You can't clutch what you can't grab. When the mid-90s came, the game was called the same but the quality of the depth improved to the point where the differences were less. Now it absolutely could be because the cream of the crop was spread out more (due to expansion) so that there were less lines that could spin around the defense. But its probably a bit of both those things at once -- a little dilution of the top talent, a lot of improvement of the bottom half of team rosters. And, to be fair, goaltending sucked in the 80s. So, sure there was less discipline in defensive structures, more pond hockey by the best, and more scoring opportunities overall, but way more pucks were going in that wouldn't be going in today.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Please no.

No more watering down the talent level.

"Watering down the talent level" is a pretty weak argument. Of course if you had 8 teams in the league, each team would be unbelievably talented!

But the league's more talented than ever right now.

In my view, the modern NHL began when the Eastern Bloc fell.

It ushered in a flux of talent from the former Soviet Union and former Czechoslovakia.

At the same time, the professionalization of the game increased -- the athleticism and fitness of players dramatically increased. And there was a revolution in equipment, which enabled far more effective goaltending. National programs then improved dramatically -- USA and Sweden probably leading the way (compared to what they were).

While other nations improve the quality of their players through their national programs (and otherwise), Canada has maintained a lead. It is shrinking, but since the US won its first IIHF U-20 junior tourney (it now has 6), Canada has won 10.

Let's look at 2003-2004, the year Parise led the US to its first junior victory. That season was 3 years after the NHL completed its 1990s era expansion, which saw the league add the Sharks, Sens, Lightning, Panthers, Ducks in the first part of the decade and Predators, Wild, Blue Jackets and Thrashers at the end of the decade. In that season, 548 Canadians played in the NHL. (Before that second wave -- in the first full season after the 94-95 lockout, 533 Canadians played in the 26 team league. And before that 1990s expansion started, in 1990-91, the last full season before the USSR fell (though a handful of Russians and Czechs were here), there were 544 Canadians.

In other words, the rapid expansion of the NHL in the 1990s had no material effect on the number of Canadians in the league. Canada was the indisputably dominant international force in juniors during the 1990s. It is safe to say the quality of Canadian players was not declining. But Canadians did not did not increase there numbers in the NHL between 1990 and 2003 despite 9 more teams being added to the league because the NHL was drawing its players from a much larger market of players -- both in numbers and from nations who had upped their game.

And, as mentioned above, while Canadians have not dominated international hockey in the past 20 years, they still produce more of the best hockey players on the planet than any other nation. But in the past 20 years, the NHL has added only 2 teams. And last season, only 434 Canadians played in the NHL. Still the best hockey player producing nation in the world -- but with about 50 more NHL player jobs available as compared to 23 years ago, Canadians are down 100 players.

I don't think Canada's putting out worse players -- in fact, with improvements in fitness and professionalism, I expect the 500 best Canadians today are far better than the 500 best Canadians 3 decades ago (and certainly 4 decades ago). But the fact is USA and Sweden are producing a ton more NHL caliber players. And there have also been increases from Finland and there are a team's worth of guys from other countries who weren't part of the eastern block. (The former Eastern Bloc's totals peaked a while back -- the KHL (especially in its early years) provided a quicker path to money for Russians and other Eastern Europeans, and the transition to North America was always a little harder on these players than the Scandinavian and Finnish peers. Plus, I don't think the national programs from the east have improved much in the past 20 years).

The point is, if you want the relative talent of the pre 1990s NHL expansion, you could probably add about 6 or 7 teams to today's NHL. Adding 2 more team 4 or 5 years from now (which is what's on the table) is still going to leave a far better game than we had at the start of this GDHTB.

EDIT -- source for nationality from Quant Hockey (https://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/nationa ... stats.html).

And yet in best on best in men's hockey Canada has got 4 of the last 5. The US won a tournament on a high stick goal by a traitor from North Van where Mario, Kariya (May Gary Suter rot in hell) and Roy didn't or couldn't play. For some reason journeymen like Odelein and Cujo wore the Maple Leaf.

[UWSaint]

And yet in best on best in men's hockey Canada has got 4 of the last 5. The US won a tournament on a high stick goal by a traitor from North Van where Mario, Kariya (May Gary Suter rot in hell) and Roy didn't or couldn't play. For some reason journeymen like Odelein and Cujo wore the Maple Leaf.

And yet? That's more to my point. Canadian hockey remains the best and yet the numbers are still falling in the NHL.

[Strangelove]

The point is, if you want the relative talent of the pre 1990s NHL expansion, you could probably add about 6 or 7 teams to today's NHL. Adding 2 more team 4 or 5 years from now (which is what's on the table) is still going to leave a far better game than we had at the start of this GDHTB.

But see, I fear that in 2028 when there's 34 NHL teams I'll be harshly missing the relative talent of 2016.

Yeah, but mostly I don't want my Nucks to lose a Granlund.

Or, now that I think about it, I don't want to see a new expansion powerhouse possibly emerge...

[Blob Mckenzie]

And yet in best on best in men's hockey Canada has got 4 of the last 5. The US won a tournament on a high stick goal by a traitor from North Van where Mario, Kariya (May Gary Suter rot in hell) and Roy didn't or couldn't play. For some reason journeymen like Odelein and Cujo wore the Maple Leaf.

And yet? That's more to my point. Canadian hockey remains the best and yet the numbers are still falling in the NHL.

The game is just too expensive to play these days.

[Tciso]

I don't want expansion. My OCD loves the 4x8 divisions. Even and balanced. I love 1/2 the team's in the playoffs
I love no wierd play-in crazy like mlb or the bubble year.

If you ask why no expansion, it's simple. We have a great system for teams, fans, the media and betting
( not a fan of sports gambling, but if we have it, do it right). Shuffle teams around, but, the basic system is the best the league had had since it was 6 teams.

More teams messes up the balanced schedule, rivalries, and the odds of making the playoffs in each division. More teams mean either messing up the playoff format, or more teams miss the playoffs and flounder in futility longer. And, fans love a floundering team. Am I right??

And, finally profits are not a guarantee either. Revenue will rise but so do expenses. The expansion cities are all tier 3 markets, and Winnipeg, Buffalo, Columbus, etc have saturated the bottom end already.

So, is expansion really better? Imo, no.

[Blob Mckenzie]

MLB qualifies 12/32 teams for playoffs. It's still a harder go than the NHL.

I agree. I don't want anymore teams. But ultimately the owners will do what lines their pockets.

[Meds]

MLB qualifies 12/32 teams for playoffs. It's still a harder go than the NHL.

I agree. I don't want anymore teams. But ultimately the owners will do what lines their pockets.

I don't want expansion, but if we end up with 4 divisions of 9 teams, that's ok......provided no expansion of the playoff format. I actually like the idea of a lesser percentage of the total sum of league teams being in the playoffs. 16 in, 20 out. Make the regular season mean even more.

[BoS]

Bettman met with the media yesterday.

The league is hopeful the salary could again go up as much as $4.5 for 25/26. Seems plausible given the move from Arizona to Utah. Even if the team breaks even, it’s already a win given the black hole that franchise has been on the league for years.

The current CBA expires in Sept ‘26. Bettman expect talks to resume in early ‘25 and feels optimistic a new deal could be struck as early as next June.

Players have suggested a reduction of preseason games to 4, while adding an additional 2 games in the regular season to 84. This is all preliminary of course, but seems like the two sides are in a good place.

No talks of expansion are on the agenda.