I’ve said it all along…send the Jets back to Winnipeg!

Posted by Animal Drew from A Nightmare on Helm Street on 12/10/08 at 12:22 PM ET

Keep them there. The core fans will suffer tremendous heartache. I didn’t want my Preds to move and I don’t want the desert dogs to move either. We can’t have every team in Canada.

Posted by PredNeck from Hicktown on 12/10/08 at 01:09 PM ET

I consider Phoenix about the worst sports town in America. Can’t sell MLB playoffs tix. Half empty stadium for the NFL for years. The Suns have done well but they have been there forever. I would never consider putting a hockey team there and you are all seeing why…..When they start talking about the parking deal or whatever just give it up and move already. I don’t want to hear it…..

Posted by kevin from boston on 12/10/08 at 01:58 PM ET

If they move the Predators, all the Red Wing fans retired in Phoenix will never get to see NHL hockey.

Posted by w2j2 on 12/10/08 at 02:24 PM ET

I would welcome the move.  As Kevin noted above it has a terrible record for supporting teams - and since the NHL is a ticket revenue sport then this does not bode well.  Contraction is an option, but when there are markets for these teams I think moving makes the most sense until those potential cities have had their chance at supporting an NHL team.

Winnipeg is the easy suggestion, but the rink is small, not much of a corporate presence there either.  I’d have to say southern Ontario makes the most sense right now…  As for PredNeck’s comment… well there are 6 out of 30 NHL teams in Canada… so no worries about ALL the teams being here.  But there is no doubt we can support 1 maybe 2 more.  8 out of 30 isn’t too much to ask, is it?

Anyway, the quicker they move teams like this the better for the league - they are just dragging down the rest of the league.  Oh wait, Ego Bettman would have to go before that happens…  maybe the first relocation should be Gary!

Posted by WingMan from The Q C on 12/10/08 at 02:36 PM ET

As far as I’m concerned the only places left for hockey in the US are Seattle and Milwaukee. I wouldn’t considered anywhere else. Columbus and Nashville are never going to work. But the NHL can use them as a bargaining chip with the NHLPA to get concessions. It’s always helpful to have a couple poor sisters to complaining about. Small market teams do not help in any way. No TV ratings…No tix revenue….As for Canada..its one and done. No more Winnipegs or Quebec City. Another team in Toronto I could go for seeing as the Raptors sell out for the NBA so there is obviously nothing to do up there if the Leafs aren’t playing….

Posted by kevin from boston on 12/10/08 at 02:49 PM ET

The easy solution is to just contract a bunch of teams - but I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to just move or lose a few and see if that would improve the situation for teams that aren’t at the very bottom, but one tier higher?

Columbus, if they could ever actually make the playoffs and win a few games or a series could be successful, I think.  Their problem has been hopeless teams more than anything else, and once the novelty wore off they didn’t get any better.

Nashville has been a very well-managed team and had some success, but the ownership situation has been a continual mess.  I’ve heard that they didn’t really promote the team all that well, either, and if it was primarily a failure of marketing and ownership then the fans deserve credit for sticking it out as long as they have.

Tampa is a circus, but I think they have had pretty strong attendance for the most part, and a Stanley Cup helps that out.  Two teams in Florida might be one to many, though - the Panthers seem to have less support than the Lightning.

Maybe instead of contracting a bunch of teams under the assumption that that will improve the financial situation for the entire league, consider moving more slowly.  The league expanded too fast and initally diluted the talent - maybe it would be better to only move or contract a few teams (say contract two and move one to a better market) and then see what happens.  If more drastic action seems to be needed, it can always be taken later on.  Once a limb is amputated, it’s very difficult to put it back, and if the league chops off a bunch of teams, and then adds a few later on when that didn’t work, they will look even more clueless than they do at the worst of times right now.

Contracting and/or moving many teams would look panicy, but only a few moves might look more prudent and a measured response to over-expansion.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 12/10/08 at 04:08 PM ET

It’s classic boom vs bust cycle of economics. Same thing happened in the 70’s…too much expansion…bad economy…teams folded. Then they consolidated with the WHA…re-aligned divisions for rivalries and the NHL flourished again. This is a huge opportunity for hockey fans….fold a couple teams, move a couple more and re-align some divisions (ie let the Rangers play the Devil 10-12 times or the Wings vs Toronto. That will guarantee sellouts!)  and you will see better hockey. But teams like Columbus and Nashville have got to go so get on with it…..

Posted by kevin from boston on 12/10/08 at 04:52 PM ET

I disagree that CLB is not a good market.  If the Preds were there (i.e. management, players, team, etc) that would be a very successful franchise.  Florida, Nashville, Phoenix and Atlanta are the four teams that should be moved/merged/contracted.

1 team in FLA is plenty and I agree that TB is the more successful and established franchise.  ATL is a failure for the second time, not the right place for hockey.  NSH is mind boggling.  They have had good success and have been run well - for them to be struggling at the gate like they are tells me NSH is not a place for and NHL team.

The markets that could be filled here is Southern Ontario, Portland/Seattle and Milwaukee/Green Bay.  That is only 3 markets and we have to move 4 teams.  I posted before that I love the idea of a merge/relocate…

Posted by WingMan from The Q C on 12/10/08 at 07:44 PM ET

I didn’t know that they were originally supposed to move to Scottsdale, rather than Glendale.  Wonder how that would’ve changed things?  Next time I talk to my buddy down in Scottsdale, I’ll have to ask about that.

Posted by Doogie2K from Calgary on 12/11/08 at 02:10 PM ET