The coaches.

Don Waddell lost the Atlanta Thrashers to Winnepeg. Where is this franchise gonna go? Quebec?

 

Many seem to assume that Quebec City has some form of entitlement to have an NHL franchise. All teams conduct their business in US$'s. That accounts for the exodus of Canadian teams back in the 90's. It was particularly painful for small-market franchises.

QC is one of the smallest of markets and with the Looney having lost so much value relative to the Greenback, I do not expect the Canes to blow into QC as seemingly assumed by some.

My bet is that Raleigh keeps their team. Each NHL owner recently banked over $16MM in non-HRR (i.e., they didn't have to share a dime with the players) in expansion fees. They'll pocket over $20MM each when Seattle joins the club. That glosses over a lot of fiscal incompetence. The owners have a self-interest in making the league appear stable. Expect the Canes to stay for awhile.

 

^^great info there Dan.

 

It's not a battle of markets, it's stable ownership. Quebec may be a small market population wise, but they have much more hockey fans per capita than most US teams
If the Canes move, that will be a decision made by ownership, not the nhl.

Also, public knowledge that Quebec has the most nhl ready city in north america. Bettman looks at ownership and the looney and market have little to do with it as it was poor ownership why they lost their team in the first place.

Also, the sabres would've lost their team if bettman didn't step in after the Regis disaster. Golisano came in after the league saved their bacon, but these were all ownership issues.

 

I know hockeybob would kill me for saying this as he always argued against this point - but with Vegas now, then Seattle and maybe Quebec - can the league really support all these teams and current teams in the NHL talent-wise? I think the talent pool is thin. Hockeybob refuted against me every time on this. Seattle and Quebec would be 2 new teams. Add in Vegas and that's 3. Can the league have 2 more expansion drafts to fill these teams without watering down the league? HBob says yes. I don't think so. My fear is too many teams, rosters thin on talent and a watered down product.

 

I'm not Hockeybob, but I disagree. I think todays systems are saturated with talent. NCAA, Canada's programs and minor affiliates like AHL, ECHL and the influx from over-seas has never been greater. I say build. With the right leadership at the top, things can expand and flourish at the same time.

Just my opinion, based on absolutely nothing.

 

I think it would've been watered down if it was 30 years ago. You had Canada, 3 American states and the odd swede, czech or finn.

 

To be honest, a year ago I would've agreed with cat. After seeing what the knights have accomplished with everybody elses supposed junk, I've changed my view.

Also, so much top tier drafted that don't end up playing more than 3 games.

 

The NHL absolutely has enough talent to sustain more teams - hell, they'll have enough talent to sustain more teams even when the market doesn't necessarily allow for more teams.

Vegas had, and Seattle will have, the opportunity to poach serious talent from every team. Now, this is partly because some teams poorly identified who to protect, but also in large part due to the fact that each team simply didn't have enough slots to protect their meaningful players.

We can point to poor talent evaluation by NHL GM's, but we can't point to lack of talent. I do think you can make the argument that the league isn't seeing as many quality D-men and even G's as they need to keep up with the talent at F, but that's a different conversation.

 

You have not addressed the Looney: Greenback issue. My comments about QC were entirely related to that and the issue is greatly exacerbated in a small market.

I think this is the true reason for why they did not get an expansion team despite meeting every application criteria. I doubt owners will support a relocation there for the same reason.

Comparing QC to US markets for this discussion is not germane. At some point relative interest (in hockey) is irrelevant. The absolute number always matters more.

 

This is easy, Cat. Bob was right, and he still is. Look at the native country breakdown of NHL players. What % are Canadian today? What was that % 20 years ago? Are a lot fewer Canadians playing hockey, or has that country had a dramatic population decline?

The inference is obvious: the pool of talent is greatly expanded compared the past.

 

Quebec doesn't fit the bettman criteria for expansion. He's looking to grow the sport in expanding markets and create new rivalries.
Quebec is the perfect city to bail out an owner that wants out, and can't find a buyer to take his team in the existing market.
When quebec get their team, they'll face the same issues as every other canadian team as far as the looney goes.
Rich old guys don't buy nhl teams for a profit, they also don't want to go broke.

Also, it's not only the canes, the sens and flames have their issues as well.

 

NHL Player Totals by Nationality - 2016

Country Players
Canada 451
United States 266
Sweden 87
Czechoslovakia 38
Finland 37
Russia 27
USSR 17
Switzerland 13
Denmark 10
Czech Republic 10

All I know is when I watch the Flyers - to me - Matt Read, Dale Weiss, Jordan Weal and maybe Lehtera and Flippula are just not NHL players. They're AHL players and ham and eggers. So countries are cranking out more players, but what is the quality of that player ? The Flyers have 2 whole lines of very average to mediocre talent. So is this a good thing ? HBob never addressed quality vs quantity. So expand to 2 more teams and force team to unprotect more talent and have them replace it with their prospects who may or may not be NHL ready is the answer ? I don't think saying "Canada is producing more players than 20 years ago," answers this. How good are the players coming out now? Last year's draft wasn't that great compared to others and the top pick this year.

MLB rosters are filled with very average ballplayers and many of those guys, especially pitchers, would not be on an MLB rosters if there were less teams.

 

Vanek-Austria
Kopitar-Slovenia

 

I didn't feel like copying the entire list as it got down to low percentages.

 

When they say USSR, I guess they mean baltic states.

 

Czechoslovakia doesnt exist

 

perhaps this is a better list ...

1 Canada 445
2 United States 269
3 Sweden 98
4 Russia 39
5 Czech Republic 36
6 Finland 42 1
7 Slovakia 13
8 Denmark 7
9 Austria 3
10 Switzerland 14
11 Slovenia 1
12 Germany 7
13 Norway 2
14 France 3
15 Latvia 1
16 Netherlands 1
17 Australia 1

 

Where's Kazakhstan and belarus? No current players.

 

Ukraine? Ponikorovsky, Dimitri Kristich.