Could The Jets Return Next Year?

[wild4life]

Yet another difference in stories.

I have to see facts here, all I see is what you say.

Any links to the Gretzky story, because what I heard all through time was that Winnipeg was always bitter because they PASSED on Gretzky because he was TOO small.

Regardless what we say. If the Winnipeg ever gets a team (I doubt it), I'll move back and be first in line for season tickets.



Has anyone ever heard of Wayner playing in Cinni, and or drafted in the WHA? lol

I know he played for the Indianapolis Racers in the WHA before being traded to the Oilers and then joining the NHL in '79-'80 along with the Oilers franchise. Wasn't Gretzky even disqualified for RotY due to the fact that his rookie year as a pro was in the WHA?

[thesnake87]

I know he played for the Indianapolis Racers in the WHA before being traded to the Oilers and then joining the NHL in '79-'80 along with the Oilers franchise. Wasn't Gretzky even disqualified for RotY due to the fact that his rookie year as a pro was in the WHA?

Yessir.

[centrehice]

Sorry I mixed up Mess with Gretz and the two WHA teams. Long time ago and my memory is going.

[Wickabee]

Could a city like Portland or Seattle work?

.................................................. .....................

Portland has the Rose Garden which is relatively new, 6 1/2 years old I believe. The only concession there is the Trailblazers. Another Pro team would have to do some major butt-kissing, as the Trailblazers even hate the Winterhawks for stealing 5-6 fans away from them, I cannot imagine how much they'd freak in losing half their fan base. Lol.

The Winterhawks are in 1st place in the West in the CHL, and looking for a Mem Cup. They have a devout following, and have had for years, although they play every game but 1 or 2 next door in the old Coliseum. The only time the Winterhawks are allowed into the Rose Garden is when the Trailblazers take their long Eastern road trip, and they have to beg to get one, possible two games.

Seattle is an ideal city for an NHL Franchise, however they need a brand new building from the ground up, which was a reason for the failure of the Sonics. The city had gassed the Kingdome and built Qwest Field new for the Seachickens, then also built a new ballpark for the inept Mariners.

Now should somebody with dough from the Portland area come forward in the next year or two, then that would be a positive, however I feel that an NHL Franchise in Portland would be the end of the Winterhawks, as they would have to compete night in and night out. I'd hate to see the Winterhawks go, as they, Seattle, and Tri-Cites do their best to offer some form of Hockey entertainment, and other than the last couple of years the Western Hockey League ate everyone's lunch for over 25 years.

I was pretty certain the Winterhawks had one of the better fanbases in the WHL (I live in Kelowna). I do realize the Winterhawks would probably have to move due to a depleted fanbase, but that's kind of the reality of junior hockey (could Tacoma be an option for a WHL team again?).
As for the problems with the Trailblazers, The owner of the Canucks (who also owns Rogers Arena) is bugging the NBA to give Vancouver another shot because he wants another tenant in the building. It could be a case of the Blazers wanting sole use of the arena, or it could just be a "they're only a junior team" kind of mentality. It the Blazers own the arena, it would likely be a hard sell by the sounds of it. If the arena is independent of the team, no (smart) owner would really be against a second pro tenant. Of course, I don't know the situation there.

Seattle would definitely need a new arena, which seems unlikely (to me, anyway). I'm not sure what the fanbase is for the T-Birds vs the Winterhawks, but I feel like Portland's is larger. I also wonder how Vancouver would feel about a team in Seattle with the proximity. with Portland, that's not really an issue.

Again, I'll say that while I'd love to see another couple of teams in Canada (I think every Canadian would) the idea that the NHL will do anything to keep American teams south of the border more than makes sense and 30Ranfordfan's explanation of why keeping a team in a horrible market makes sense as well. At the same time, though, I wonder how many owners will continually lose money just to make the league's relationship with a TV network work. The trick, I believe, is to find individual markets that work within the US. Hockey is everything in Canada. In the US it seems more of a niche market and some cities just won't fly. I believe Atlanta is one of these, as are Phoenix, Miami and Columbus (again, my opinion). Perhaps Kansas City, Portland, Seattle, even Houston could work. It has nothing to do with the cities being American, or even in the so-called "sunbelt" some cities just aren't good fits. I truly believe with the proper ownership and marketing (and hopefully a winning record) any sport can work almost in any city, so long as the possible fanbase is large enough. Should Atlanta move, or be marketed better? It's an interesting question.

Phoenix is a bit of a different situation as I truly believe they're a team built so that Canadian "snowbirds" can have a home team to cheer for. That can't work, as Canadians already have teams to cheer for, as witnessed by the fact 90% of the fans cheer for Vancouver when the Canucks visit Glendale. I believe this to be part of Miami's problem as well. At the same time I do believe that with proper marketing, more Canadian teams can work as well, even in the US TV market. I mean, what's better for an American viewer, watching the Kings beat another American team for the Stanley Cup, or watching a US team beat a team from "hockey's home," Canada?

It all comes down to marketing, and I do believe the league and the US networks are selling the NHL short if they're thinking more Canadian teams can't work. With that thinking every Canadian team should move out and a "Northern Hockey League" should start up. I do believe it's the product, not the cities that will sell. If the hockey is good enough, fans will watch.
The trick is making US fans in the first place. That actually has little to do with the NHL itself. The real place to make American fans is for the USA to do well in the Olympics, World Championships and WJCs. Think about it, the 1980 Olympic team took the Gold and hockey takes off in the States. 10 years later you have Modanos and Roenicks and Richters and Hatchers entering the NHL. They play well and make a name for American hockey and another decade later you have Kessels and Keslers and Millers again making a name for US hockey. The best thing to get US viewers is for any ANY Team USA to do well on the national stage. 24 of 30 NHL teams are American, even if that went to 22, that's still enough. So long as Hockey USA is doing well, Americans will follow. I believe that, while it makes short term sense to take it, the path being taken is somewhat flawed.

[edthesandwich]

To respond to the OP's question, the only way the Jets return to the NHL is via expansion, for all of the reasons stated earlier. For better or worse, the league is dead set against moving any team anywhere at any time under Bettman's regime.

You may not like the job he has done to date, but with word earlier this week that Fox and Turner are considering bids to compete with ESPN and Versus for a piece of the NHL's TV pie next season, I'd say the commish is doing something right. Especially when you consider the dire straits faced by the NFL and NBA right now.

[centrehice]

I don't think that Bettman has done a bad marketing job. It's been first class.

I think that he has protected the Canadian Franchises and allowed them to compete through league-wide revenue sharing along with the NHLPA. He has made a point of stressing the acceptance and the need for drawing the huge populous of the United States toward the game.

I am not upset over the Lockout, it had to happen to move forward collectively. My only wish in regard to Gary Bettman, is to stop tinkering with the Essence Of The Game, the fabric of the roots of the game.

It's fine to market, invite families, stress community involvement, strive for the best product available, all while protecting the stars of the game.

It is not however in the least bit cool to suggest that the Nets should be enlarged, or that a Netminder cannot play the puck. He is afterall, one of 6 players on the ice.

It is also not cool to suggest that the final result of game be removed from the team, and placed on the shoulders of the individual team members, and goaltenders. Hockey is a team game, not a side-show for the shootout.

Skating backwards is a lost art in the NHL. Hundreds of forwards since 1990 have played and cannot skate a lick in reverse. This is troubling, as it's not being taught at the grassroots level much anymore, nor is it embraced.

The backhand is being lost. These things cannot be allowed to happen, and like it or not, the NHL has to answer for portions of the lost arts that have brought the sport this far.

ESPN has shown that it's an entertainment network, Sport be damned. I truly hope that in Mr. Bettman's going forward that he not lose sight of the finer points that make the game great, and not turn it into just and entertainment spectacle for the sake of money and ratings.

After all that's why folks watch Basketball, it entertains to the point of sullying the Sport itself.

[edthesandwich]

To be fair, though, hice ...

-- the suggestions like enlarged nets, goaltender involvement in the play, using shootouts to break ties, etc., were the product of meetings held by the 30 GMs and the newly-formed competition committee prior to the resumption of play in 2005. Bettman wasn't an active participant in those initial discussions, and when you go back and look at some of what was said at that time, you had a LOT of players and executives who actually liked a lot of the ideas put forth. Some of them seem silly now, since it was clear that a lot of the changes made did help boost offense, but there were about 20 rule changes put on the table back in April 2005 -- and Bettman was only acquiescing to the suggestions made by the GMs and selected players.

You're absolutely right in that the league needs to avoid trying to go "showtime" like the NBA, but it's a really delicate balance in hockey. A portion of the population loves firebrand hockey with 7-6 scores and end-to-end action. Another portion loves those goalie duels that end 1-0 or 2-1. Some people love fighting, others don't. Some people will actually stop what they're doing and watch every second of the shootout, while critics call it nothing more than a sideshow. Of all the four major sports, hockey has had to make the biggest adjustments to the increasing size and skill of its players. Who do you please?

I think Bettman has the toughest job of any of the four commissioners. And like him or not, I think he has done an admirable job to date. I'll never agree with his decision to stubbornly ignore overtures of interested Canadian-based buyers, because I think Canada should have eight teams no matter what -- but the way he handled the lockout saved this sport from oblivion. It's now relatively healthy, quite watchable and full of marketable stars.

I don't mean for this post to further hijack the "Are the Jets Coming Back" angle, but I think they're salient points when discussing the OP. Winnipeg isn't Bettman's first choice, because he wants to make his league more economically viable in other markets and eventually grow the sport into a larger continental entity. But that's the mandate of his OWNERS, the guys who pay his salary and keep him employed. And frankly, it's good business; good for owners, good for players and in the end, good for fans of the sport because without a strong economic footing, you'll see a lot more players heading off to the KHL.

We should stop shooting the messenger here; Bettman does what he does with an agenda handed down to him from his 30 bosses. And considering how much he's been grilled over the years, I'm guessing a lot of people don't consider that when knocking him.

[dtab316]

To be fair, though, hice ...

-- the suggestions like enlarged nets, goaltender involvement in the play, using shootouts to break ties, etc., were the product of meetings held by the 30 GMs and the newly-formed competition committee prior to the resumption of play in 2005. Bettman wasn't an active participant in those initial discussions, and when you go back and look at some of what was said at that time, you had a LOT of players and executives who actually liked a lot of the ideas put forth. Some of them seem silly now, since it was clear that a lot of the changes made did help boost offense, but there were about 20 rule changes put on the table back in April 2005 -- and Bettman was only acquiescing to the suggestions made by the GMs and selected players.

You're absolutely right in that the league needs to avoid trying to go "showtime" like the NBA, but it's a really delicate balance in hockey. A portion of the population loves firebrand hockey with 7-6 scores and end-to-end action. Another portion loves those goalie duels that end 1-0 or 2-1. Some people love fighting, others don't. Some people will actually stop what they're doing and watch every second of the shootout, while critics call it nothing more than a sideshow. Of all the four major sports, hockey has had to make the biggest adjustments to the increasing size and skill of its players. Who do you please?

I think Bettman has the toughest job of any of the four commissioners. And like him or not, I think he has done an admirable job to date. I'll never agree with his decision to stubbornly ignore overtures of interested Canadian-based buyers, because I think Canada should have eight teams no matter what -- but the way he handled the lockout saved this sport from oblivion. It's now relatively healthy, quite watchable and full of marketable stars.

I don't mean for this post to further hijack the "Are the Jets Coming Back" angle, but I think they're salient points when discussing the OP. Winnipeg isn't Bettman's first choice, because he wants to make his league more economically viable in other markets and eventually grow the sport into a larger continental entity. But that's the mandate of his OWNERS, the guys who pay his salary and keep him employed. And frankly, it's good business; good for owners, good for players and in the end, good for fans of the sport because without a strong economic footing, you'll see a lot more players heading off to the KHL.

We should stop shooting the messenger here; Bettman does what he does with an agenda handed down to him from his 30 bosses. And considering how much he's been grilled over the years, I'm guessing a lot of people don't consider that when knocking him.

And another one who understands the truth! Maybe my sermon is finally getting through!

Is Winnepeg gonna get the Coyotes or Thrashers? I doubt it. You still have KC, Seattle, Portland, OKC, Vegas, or maybe even Hartford getting a relocated team. I expect Winnepeg, QC, Hamilton, or Halifax to get an expansion team within 5 to 10 years. It all depends on what I've been saying. If the NHL can get a MAJOR television deal SOON, expect the Thrashers, Coyotes, Panthers, and maybe even the Islanders to pull up roots and call another city home.

[RGM81]

Halifax will not get an expansion team. Not in 5-10 years. Not ever.

The arena here makes the Mellon Arena look like the Bell Centre in comparison. It's old, it's ugly, and it's way too small. There is an entrenched opposition to innovation and enlargement here - they are a small but highly vocal minority and they have a tendency to quash new development projects. There is absolutely no chance that the people would allow a $300M arena to be built using public funds when the province is over $10B in debt despite having the highest tax rates outside of Quebec in the country.

Add in the logistical issues presented by travel, games being an hour ahead of the EST, lack of corporate sponsorship, and the basic fact that there's no possibility of people shelling out NHL ticket prices 41 nights a year (see the tax thing above) and it's an absolute lock that there will not be an NHL team here.

[mq13]

All good points but Atlanta gets almost no exposure on NBC so i don't think it would weaken the tv deal that much. They are a market that doesn't care about hockey.

Atlanta is a market that does not support any of the Major League teams. They are into College sports.