Mike Chen's Hockey Blog
Next entry: Should The Sharks Re-Sign Patrick Marleau?
Previous entry: Fear The Fehr
25 or 30?
by Mike Chen on 11/09/09 at 12:00 PM ET
Comments (17)
Joe Starkey, columnist for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, recently stated something that we’ve heard off and on over the years: that the NHL needs to contract. Now, I’m guessing Starkey is saying this from a talent perspective instead of looking at economics, because he’s not saying “These troubled markets need to be addressed.” Rather, he states that five teams should go, then states which ones he’d cut off.
The “three to five teams should disappear” argument pops up from time to time, but I think if you realistically consider how the talent would actually be redistributed, it’d make much less of a difference than one might think.
Here are some numbers to consider:
-20 players suit up for each NHL game, 18 skaters and two goalies. Three guys sit in the press box.
-If you lopped off five teams, that’s about 16% of the league. To correlate that, that means that theoretically three or four guys could be redistributed throughout the league—could, not would.
So let’s take Starkey’s notion of killing Florida, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Phoenix, and either LA or Anaheim (we’ll pick Anaheim since I doubt even in this scenario the NHL would allow the Kings to go). How much would NHL rosters actually change? Would the talent level of the league significantly improve?
Ok, it’s a given that a Steven Stamkos or Ryan Getzlaf going somewhere else would make an immediate impact but would there be enough to change the overall quality of the league?. What about the third or fourth liners of the world? Many of them are interchangeable parts, which means that a handful of them would get jobs in the NHL and the bulk of them would disappear into the AHL or KHL. And let’s not even take the salary cap into consideration here, because that creates impossible projections about what goes up or down.
So then let’s assume that the Holy Grail of some pundits is achieved and the NHL contracts five teams. I think a reasonable assumption is that each of the remaining 25 teams would get either a first or second line player (e.g. Zach Bogosian, Shane Doan) and one guy to fill in on the checking line or third D pair while sharing time in the press box. Would that really make the overall quality of the league better? Of course some teams would immediately get an injection of talent, but I don’t think if you showed clips of pre-dispersal and post-dispersal games to an objective viewer, he’d go “Wow, what a difference.”
The NHL already pulls talent from the best leagues in the world. Of all the hockey players in the world, these guys believe that redistributing about 30 talented guys will make up for “over-expansion” and “diluting of the talent pool”? Please.
Currently, 31 players who played in the NHL last season signed with the KHL prior to the 2009-10 season, and that’s not including guys like Jaromir Jagr or Alex Radulov. While the NHL-to-KHL roster is mostly a mix of lower-echelon top-six players and checkers, it’s still a loss of talent that isn’t dramatically changing the NHL. There’s a definite difference between the KHL’s best 30 guys and the best-of-the-best of who’d be in any group of five contracted rosters, but the drop off to the next level isn’t that dramatic.
Maybe I’m just missing something but I see the NHL talent pool as being more than supportive of 30 teams. A big part of this comes from the number of high-quality European- and American-born draft picks over the past decades. The percentage of non-Canadians in the first round has grown significantly over the years, and that’s not because Canada isn’t putting out top-end talent—it’s because the rest of the world is starting to catch up:
1985: 5/21 (23.8%)
1995: 9/26 (34.6%)
2005: 15/30 (50%)
While this may upset some nationalists, ultimately it provides us with a larger talent pool to support a better NHL. So then the question goes back to the notion of contraction. The only reasonable argument for contraction is because the economics of the league can’t support 30 teams, not because of talent. However, history has shown us time and again that teams can be successful in non-traditional locations if they’ve got strong ownership, they’re managed well, they’re coached well, and they draft well. The problem is that you wind up with a lot of people at the top making wrong decisions, and that trickles all the way down through the team and affects the fan base. (See: Koules, Oren and Barrie, Len)
If Starkey and others like him wanted to advocate for franchise relocation, I think that’s a more reasonable debate. But as the NHL talent pool gets more diverse and as more top-end talent comes out of USA Hockey or European countries, the idea that it’s too diluted to support 30 teams is becoming quickly outdated.
Filed in: NHL | Mike Chen's Hockey Blog | Permalink
Tags: Contraction,
Comments
You got me. I thought when people were on the contraction kick, it always included the Preds.
Posted by Mike Chen on 11/09/09 at 12:37 PM ET
The argument I’d use would be for the economic health of the league…moving franchises that are in the red for several years and are draining the revenue sharing. Moving franchises that drain revenue sharing up to Canada would turn $30-50m in losses to millions in profits, which is good for the health of the league. Obviously, you want to allow struggling franchises to turn things around, but if you’re spending 3, 4, 5 seasons deep in the red, it should be open season.
Posted by Jarick on 11/09/09 at 12:44 PM ET
People have to remember that it does take time for a fan base to build. Here in Columbus, it used to be split between Wings/Pens. All the kids that grew up as those fans are still Wings/Pens fans, but slowly are turning towards the BJ’s. The kids growing up now are all BJ’s fans and love Mason.
It is a slow process, but it can work in some areas (note: I do not give Atlanta/Phx this distinctions and actually think that Phx is in better shape for the future than Atlanta is…)
Posted by moore00 from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 11/09/09 at 01:13 PM ET
OSU’s economic program must be suffering as Atlanta’s owners own the facility. What else are they going to put in there for 44 days a year.
I was surprised to see that Columbus was struggling. Hopefully they will be able to turn it around.
MLB needs to contract, starting with Pittsburgh.
Posted by Bluto on 11/09/09 at 01:24 PM ET
The “talent dilution” argument simply doesn’t hold water. The fall of the iron curtain supplied sufficient NHL level players to completely fill out the rosters of about 5 new teams. That is half of the expansion from 21 to 30 teams right there.
If you want to talk about dilution the mid 1970s when the WHA and NHL where both expanding and sharing talent is the most watered down period of pro hockey, not the 1990s or 2000s.
Posted by The Falconer from Atlanta on 11/09/09 at 02:43 PM ET
I was wondering where Nashville was too.
Also, as an example… if Tampa Bay was completely gone, would that make all contracts with that team null and void? If so, he would have a take a massive pay cut to even fit under another team’s salary cap (which I’m not against). If not, Lecavalier would not be playing because no one could afford him.
And that’s only one example. Some of these star players wouldn’t be playing in the NHL for who knows how long.
Posted by Matt Fry from Winnipeg on 11/09/09 at 02:59 PM ET
Ironically, about five years ago it would have been impossible to write this story without putting the Pittsburgh Penguins on the list.
To the ‘talent dilution’ point, it mattered more immediately prior to the lockout than it does now, with the evolution of a salary cap. With a few more skilled players out there to be had and fewer places for them to play, I think it becomes less likely that we would have seen criminally undertalented clubs employing the gum up the ice clutch and grab a thons which made the TV product of the NHL such a bore, and which birthed similar tactics from teams that actually had good players once they saw how effective it was in levelling the ice between great clubs and crappy ones.
The reason the NHL should contract isn’t a hockey talent issue, it’s a fan interest issue. With half a functioning brain instead of an engorged lust to pollenate the American South with teams, the NHL could have built a league of 20-24 incredibly solid, break-even to profit-generating clubs with no underperformers.
A realisitic salary cap with a rational floor-ceiling relationship instead of the debacle the NHL has created would have made the NHL possible in Quebec. Then you expand to Colorado and Dallas. If you have to, you move Winnipeg to San Jose, but much later on. You never move Minnesota the first time.
Phoenix, Tampa, Atlanta, Florida, Nashville, Columbus… all averted (impending) disasters. NHL franchise values would be much stronger than they are now, where the NHL actually tries to give teams away if the owner is only willing to absorb a massive debt load, making NHL teams now glorified tax shelters.
Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/09/09 at 03:14 PM ET
Maybe I’m just cynical, but I think that many owners don’t mind taking a hit on their hockey team if it provides them with the political and community anchor to manage the arena. Then they make their money off concerts and other events. Most corporate suites are sold for the entire calendar year, every event, and who knows how much of that actually is accounted for in the NHL books, plus the loss is a giant tax write-off.
Of course, you have to be in the right position with the right deal in place to do this. The Columbus situation is unique because the BJs PAY the city $5 million a year, don’t make any money off parking, and don’t get anything from naming rights. I bet if you added that all together and the team continued its upward trend, they’d break even or make a slight profit for the next few years instead of losing $10 - $12 million.
Without a favorable arena deal, owning a sports franchise is just financial suicide.
Posted by Mike Chen on 11/09/09 at 03:20 PM ET
Ironically, about five years ago it would have been impossible to write this story without putting the Pittsburgh Penguins on the list.
Actually, Joe Starkey didn’t write that, Rob Rossi did…
He should have at least given a cursory mention that the Pens were in financial trouble only two years ago. before the deal for the new arena was reached…
But then again, the fact that he didn’t doesn’t surprise me, either….
Posted by Tony from Virginia Beach, VA on 11/09/09 at 03:48 PM ET
Starkey’s quoted on the bottom part:
“Starkey: If the NHL lost three California clubs and nobody noticed, would they actually have lost three California clubs? That is a question worth pondering, Dr. Rossi. Look, the NHL needs about five fewer teams. Can you imagine the excitement of a dispersal draft? I’d lop off Florida, Tampa Bay, Atlanta and Phoenix, and if you took L.A. or Anaheim, well, like I said, would anybody notice? I guess that’s a long way of saying no.”
Posted by Mike Chen on 11/09/09 at 03:50 PM ET
This argument never goes away….Expansion was always a Gary Buttman ponzi scheme. Anyway, here is what should be done: Tampa and Florida combine….Ana and LA combine….Phoenix moves to Winnipeg….Nashville moves to Quebec City. Columbus moves to Milwaukee….Altanta or NYI moves to Hartford…....eliminate the salary floor. Problem solved….Oh and NO MORE EXPANSION FOR 25 YEARS!!!!!!
Posted by kevin from boston on 11/09/09 at 04:43 PM ET
Hockey in HD wrote: “With half a functioning brain instead of an engorged lust to pollenate the American South with teams, the NHL could have built a league of 20-24 incredibly solid, break-even to profit-generating clubs with no underperformers.”
You do realize that even in a 24 team NHL there would still be bottom feeder teams and mis-managed clubs? Those clubs that are poorly managed (see Blackhawks for years) would not break even if they loose for extended periods. To think that a smaller NHL would be free of struggling franchises strikes me as wishful thinking.
I remember back in the days of the 21 team NHL and certain teams were in trouble: North Stars and Devils off the top of my head.
Posted by The Falconer from Atlanta on 11/09/09 at 04:44 PM ET
kevin from boston says to put Columbus in Milwaukee as one of his “problem solved” ideas . . . any credibility you thought you had just went right out the window. Talk about a small market with an already existing arena problem that would need revenue sharing to survive . . . do some homework before you start rearranging the league and giving us your laughable “solution”.
Posted by Predneck from Hicktown on 11/09/09 at 04:52 PM ET
I’m not sure why everyone slags on Columbus. They had strong attendance even in the lean years, and you can only lose so much before it starts to dampen enthusiasm. It takes time to rebuild that when the on-ice produce was so badly mismanaged under Doug Maclean.
Ohio’s got a long college hockey history. Last time I checked, Ohio’s right in between hockey hotbeds Pennsylvania and Michigan. See my comment above as to the reason why the BJs are losing money, it’s not because it’s a “non-traditional” market.
Posted by Mike Chen on 11/09/09 at 04:59 PM ET
how come between 4 and 12 of the players on EVERY team suck then? the league is definitely diluted.
Posted by sgf from momo on 11/09/09 at 04:59 PM ET
You do realize that even in a 24 team NHL there would still be bottom feeder teams and mis-managed clubs? Those clubs that are poorly managed (see Blackhawks for years) would not break even if they loose for extended periods. To think that a smaller NHL would be free of struggling franchises strikes me as wishful thinking.
Struggling on the ice, sure. Struggling on the books, highly unlikely.
That’s the fundamental difference between a league run by intelligent people and a league run by idiots. In a league run by intelligent people, the franchises don’t have to be playoff-worthy 70% of the time in order for the team to be financially viable.
Seriously, if all the NHL did differently was to have actually used their brains for something besides a hat rest when coming up with their salary cap/floor linkage the economic landscape of the league would be drastically different. When they set up the lower limit, they set it at 55% of the upper limit. Of course, being idiots, they then immediately abandoned that standard and set a hard dollar figure for the spread, so that now the lower limit is now almost 72% of the cap.
Essentially, the cost to run an NHL team has increased fastest for those teams who are the least able to afford it, which probably ought to be anybody’s textbook definition of sheer stupidity. That’s a difference between the 31.2 million dollar floor there should be and the 40.6 million dollar floor there is.
A 31.2 million dollar floor combined with the current version of profit-sharing?
That would allow the ‘poor’ teams to be poor, and then be solvent at the same time. It would allow there to be an actual spread between ‘poor’ teams and ‘rich’ teams, and it would also help out the second-tier clubs quite a bit as well, since even the rich teams will be bumping up against the cap and be unable to just take every UFA off the market.
Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/09/09 at 09:05 PM ET
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Most Recent Blog Posts
Intent To Blow vs. In The Crease
What Do You Expect From A Rookie Season?
About Kukla’s Korner
Kukla’s Korner is updated around the clock with the work of our own talented bloggers, plus links to the best hockey writing around the internet. We strive to bring you all the breaking hockey news as it happens.
The home page allows you to see the latest postings from every blog on the site. Subscribe here. For general inquiries and more, please contact us anytime.
Get the top online sports betting bonuses available to sports betters!
When learning from experts it’s best to learn personally from them, or from their blog. We can provide that with poker lessons blog, your home to learn poker personally.
Do you get shocked from the luck in the game of poker? Stop getting shocked and start being a Poker Shoker.
As well as reading about hockey games, you can also find info about poker like which poker sites accept American Express or which are the best Canadian poker sites and also find the top rakeback sites at rakeback.net.
Kukla’s Korner is always a free service for readers, but it costs some money to maintain. If you’re ever in a position to donate a few dollars to help out, we’d be very appreciative.
Sorry…..how does Anaheim (a cup winner) and LA (not losing any money) get clipped before Nashville (revenue sharing charity) is even mentioned??
Posted by Brad from San Fran on 11/09/09 at 12:28 PM ET