NHL Canadian Relocation - Bad News

Jim Balsille's bid to have an NHL team relocated to Canada has stirred up a lot of emotions 'north of the border'.  Canadians began to ask "why not?  This is the home of hockey, why can't we have another NHL team? Americans are great sports fans, but they don't know hockey.  They don't love hockey like we do."

Sounds reasonable.  And I agree with it.  But lets take a look at the facts.

Fact #1  The NHL is starving for a big contract for their TV rights in America. 

Well, that's one fact.  And the only one that matters.

There are 10 Americans for every Canadian (see here), so it stands to reason that there are a lot of fans waiting to be converted.  To get the contract of his dreams, Gary Bettman must get the NHL on TV to as many people as possible, which means that he has to locate teams in as many large markets as possible. This has led to the current layout of the NHL's franchises, which include some very bizarre choices for NHL hockey - Nashville, Phoenix, Anaheim, Miami and Tampa.  I don't understand Miami.  Why Miami?  

I looked for a list of North America's largest cities, and found one here.  I exported the list to a spreadsheet, removed all the Mexican cities, Panamanian cities, Cuban cities, etc and sorted by the Largest Urban Areas (New York was #1, Livonia was last).  Here is some interesting findings:

1. The Canadian cities were listed at postions 8, 14, 24, 48, 55 and 58.  Some pretty low rankers on the list are Canadian cities.  So there are at least 29 markets (Position 58 - 29 other NHL teams) in the USA that do not have NHL teams.
   
2. Houston fits in at position 11.  No NHL team.  Sure it shares a state with Dallas, but if Florida can handle two teams, can't Texas?
3. Seattle at position 14.  No NHL team.  Sure, it's close to Vancouver but if Florida can handle two teams, can't the Vancouver/Seattle area?
4. Cleveland was higher than I expected - 16.  I guess the NHL does not want to be associated with the Most Miserable Sports Town in America (Browns, Indians, Cavs).  Why not, they MUST have the most patient fans.
   
5. Portland at 22.  See Seattle.
6. Cincinnati.  No NHL team. 
7. Nashville is at 40.  At least a population this small hasn't won a Stanley Cup.
8. Raleigh is at 42.  Damn.
9. The next highest ranked Canadian city that does not have an NHL team is Quebec.  At 63.  Winnipeg is at 64.  The other great hope - Hamilton - weighs in at 88.

Can you blame the NHL for not relocating to Canada if Seattle/Houston/Cleveland/Portland/etc are available?  Why doesn't Seattle - the 14th largest Metropolitan area in North America - ever get mentioned in relocation talks?  It is a Northern American city with a history of supporting hockey teams.  How did Nashville or Raleigh get a team before Seattle, Houston, Cleveland or Portland?

I can't see Canada getting another NHL team any day soon.  I can't make the numbers work.

Nick Kypreos is obviously a reader

Article

I understand that Nick Kypreos is a pretty passionate guy, but I don't think I'm whining.  Or am I?  It doesn't matter, I'm just proud of Nick that he could write an article - if you believe that he did it by himself.  I think he had help, he sure ain't (yes - i wrote "ain't") no Chris Shultz.

It's pretty obvious that Nick had somebody read some of these blog posts to him.  He doesn't come across as being somebody who would read a, um... anything. 

Here's a quick rebuttal to Nick, that he'll probably have that same person read to him:

The problems started with expansion.  The NHL started to expand in 1991, and continued to add teams over the next decade or so - Columbus joined the NHL in 2000 as the last expansion team of the era.  Prior to expansion, the NHL was ruled by speed, scoring and saves.  The NHL changed during the expansion years to allow the new teams to compete with the established teams.  Would an owner who just paid 50 or 80 million dollars want to have their new toy get broken 82 times every year?  Would they want to have their new hockey team lose every game by lopsided scores?  They dreaded becoming the 2009-2010 Toronto Maple Leafs.  So what was the answer?

Create conditions during gameplay that gave less talented teams the ability to keep the score close.  Sensible, except it makes for boring hockey.  What can we look at as evidence?
* Don't call so many penalties for obstruction.
* Game Management by referees.  See upcoming blog.
* Lou Lamouriello Lamerilo Lamorillo.  Damn! New Jersey Devils.
* Gary Bettman's repeated explanation that he believes exciting hockey is dictated by the score of the game.  He would smugly cite the close score of the game, instead of talking about the exciting plays or great flow.  That's because there were no exciting plays or great flow to games.  We're actually still waiting for that to return.

Nick, you apparently subscribe to the old adage "If something ain't (!) broke, don't fix it". It is 'broke'.  You just can't read the signs.

The Heel

As we've been taught by Professional Wrestling, every hero (aka babyface) needs a heel.  If we look at good, exciting hockey as the hero, then Colin Campbell is the heel.  Much more on that to come.

Make Teams Pay for Suspended Players

I have a beef (several, actually) about the NHL's disciplinary system.  This is the first of my posts on the topic, and it is focused on player suspensions.  If the NHL is serious about discipline, they will pay me for the following idea:

Players that get suspended remain on the team's NHL roster, but his paycheck goes to the NHLPA charities while he is suspended.


That's it.  Easy.

Implications: 
- The suspended player's salary will count towards the salary cap
- The player's salary who is used to replace the suspended player will also count towards the salary cap
- The suspended player is not able to be demoted to the minor leagues, removing the loophole (see the Steve Downie incident.)
This will mean that teams end up playing twice for a roster spot of a suspended player, decreasing the value of players that get suspended frequently.  This will lead to smaller paychecks for some of these players, and no jobs for some others.  Which is the whole point, anyway.

Pity for the Habs fans

In watching the Sens v Habs game last night, I began to feel pity for the fans of the Montreal Canadiens.  The Habs had dominated the play of the game, but not the score.  They had discovered how to exploit the defence of the Ottawa Senators to gain scoring chance over scoring chance, but were not able to take advantage of them.

OK, so a team not being able to 'bury their chances' is nothing new - so why the pity?

Because Jacques Martin is their coach. When coaching the Ottawa Senators, Jacques Martin lost a lot of these games - games that his team dominated but couldn't win. This is a movie that has been seen before.  Jacques Martin's team lost last night like his teams always lose.

So pity the Habs fans - they have a lot of heartbreaking losses coming this year.

Goalies are Special

The Position of Goalie is a special position in hockey.  Goalies have special privileges, they have special rules, they have special equipment.  Even other hockey players will tell you that goalies are a special breed.  The position of goalie IS a special position and should be treated as such.  Here are just some examples of how Goalies are special:

Some Examples of how Goalies are Special

1. The position of Goalie is to ensure that goals are NOT scored.  All other hockey players are trying to score.  Goalies are the only players on the ice who think "scoring sucks".
   
2. They are allowed to stop the play of the game by 'covering' the puck.
3. They get to wear equipment that is specifically designed to protect them while they play the role of Killjoys.  
4. They have a really big stick.
   
5. They have their special 'blue ice'.
6. Opposing players are not allowed to interfere with Goalies at any location on the ice.  Its like "Roughing the Kicker", but with more equipment.

Here's the problem - Goalies can also kill forechecks.  That isn't their job.  Their job is to ruin the opposing team's party by stopping the puck from entering the net behind them.  Forechecking, as explained in previous posts is DESIRABLE.  By using their trapper on their stick to handle and pass the puck, they can essentially act as another defenseman - which gives the defending team an advantage of the attacking team.  Not exciting.  The first time I saw this was with Billy Smith in the '80s.  This is not a 'part of hockey'.  This is a modification made by players that was not curtailed at the beginning and now precedence has been set.

Now what?
OK, the cat is out of the bag.  What changes can we make?  It's simple - If a player on the ice uses their equipment for anything other than it was originally designed for, that player is assessed a two minute "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" penalty.

As soon as a goalie uses their trapper (aka CATCHING GLOVE) on their stick (which is designed for stopping pucks, not shooting them) they are assessed a two minute penalty.  Goalies can still stop pucks behind the net to aid their defensemen, or scoop pucks with one hand but this would put the end to the forecheck-killing goalie.  Goalies have the right to safe, reliable equipment and protection from interference, but they do not have the right to play as other players play.

What to do?

Pat Quinn, Head Coach of the Edmonton Oilers was fined today by the NHL Director of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell. Quinn was fined because he critized a what he believed was a penalty call by a referee in a game against Calgary that Quinn believed to be lenient. Jarome Iginla was assessed a minor penalty, but Quinn was looking for much more.

Quinn complained that the NHL doesn't protect players - penalties called on dangerous plays are too lenient, but the league suspends players that pursue vigilante justice.

Quinn is quite right, but is not taking the argument far enough. There is more to the issue, and nobody wants to talk about it.

There are, in fact, several issues tied together:
1. The NHL, as stated by Quinn, is too lenient on dangerous plays.
2. The NHL, as stated by Quinn, penalizes players for protecting their teammates.
3. The NHL penalizes star players at a much reduced rate.

Campbell has stated in interviews that the value - to their teams - of the players involved (both the 'victim' and the 'perp') are considered when assigning suspensions.

Read that last part again. Keep reading it until the implications sink in. Here are some of the implications that I can come up with on a Friday night:

- Star players are suspend less
- When they are suspended, Star players are assigned lighter suspensions

The NHL is essentially stating that they do not care about the careers of the players at the lower end of the salary scale. They will protect Star players at the expense of the pluggers.

Who should be held accountable for this? First, Colin Campbell. But that's another post. Trust me - its coming.

The other party that should be ashamed for allowing these travesties is the NHLPA. The NHL is not protecting a significant portion of the NHLPA membership. The NHL is providing a more dangerous workplace for 4th liners. The NHLPA - not the NHL - should be responsible for assigning suspensions for on-ice activities. The NHLPA should be demanding a safer workplace, as any Union does. Why don't they?