Quote Originally Posted by Wickabee View Post
Snake, you're bang on.
I went to LA/Anaheim for 2 weeks a couple of years ago. When I got there, the Ducks had just been knocked out of the playoffs and the Lakers were running high in the NBA playoffs. It didn't matter where I went in LA I could always count more Ducks hats, shirts, jackets, etc than Lakers paraphenalia. Kings stuff was probably 1 for 1 with the Lakers who, again, were actually in the running for a championship. There's no truth to "traditional" markets and there's no truth to a "sunbelt" theory about hockey.
Where there is truth is the fact that you have two Canadian cities, Winnipeg and QC, who allowed themselves to lose their NHL teams and regret it. You also have a league that believes the NHL could only go forward in the US with a minimum of 24 American teams. I believe this sells the league short, it sells the sport short and it sells the fans themselves short.
For whatever reason, pro hockey hasn't worked in Atlanta twice. Colorado lost the Rockies, but have proven to be able to more than support the Avalanche. Minnesota lost the North Stars but are supporting the Wild quite well. Why not give Winnipeg or QC the chance. I don't think either city would allow their team to go down in flames again, for the simple fact of Canadian pride, or rather, municipal pride within Canada.
Snake's example of Dallas proves the point that fans will go to see a winner and that comes down to ownership. If an owner steps up to, say, move a loser in Phoenix to Winnipeg and thinks he can make it work, why stop him. If the owner is committed to winning, it's only a matter of time before the whole organization is on the same page and a winner is made.
It's not a matter of Canada v America, it's no a matter of Canadians being cheap, it's a matter of a shortsighted league looking for a quick fix to something that isn't broken, but rather growing.

Well said.