What If Phoenix Folds?

[Demonous_Xodus]

technically they could charge that as a relocation fee.

in fact I would argue it would be best for the league to move an existing franchise to the GTA rather than place an expansion team there because a team that is somewhat competetive right away (like Phoenix) would have a better shot at landing Leafs and Sabres fans that might be waivering a little after some poor seasons

I don't think they should be stealing Buffalo's fans. Especially after a poor season. It sounds like its a pretty fickle market.

[Ring-a-ding-dong-dandy]

I don't think they should be stealing Buffalo's fans. Especially after a poor season. It sounds like its a pretty fickle market.

It's not like that will be the goal, but it is going to happen naturally.

[Demonous_Xodus]

It's not like that will be the goal, but it is going to happen naturally.

I understand that, and as profitable as it is, they should not be trying to take a struggling franchise's fans to a team that will clearly out-market them and beat them in every way. At least not until Buffalo is stable and winning.

Southern Ontario is a pretty hotly fought over fanbase turf:

GTA is split between Toronto(obviously) and Buffalo. (Hamtilon, Waterloo, Kitchener a.k.a "The Golden Horseshoe Region).

Niagara/Windsor Region is a Detroit/Toronto split.

Placing a new team in either of those regions affects all three of those teams. Toronto and Detroit would be fine, yes, but Buffalo loses a large demographic in the GH Region. And under NHL Rules, that turf does belong to Buffalo.

It isn't the Leafs blocking the move, it's the Sabres.

[Zirakzigil]

Yes he is. Why wouldn't he? That would take away 23 jobs away from the NHLPA. If Phoenix is sold they stand to gain 170 million. If they are reloacted, maybe it goes up to 200 million. The league could opt to fold the franchise and then sell an expansion franchise to Quebec for 300 million.

Except that cant and wont happen. You really think the Board of Governors is just going to roll over and accept all the loses they have been taking running the team? The team cannot and will not be folded.

[ConnorFutureGM]

Except that cant and wont happen. You really think the Board of Governors is just going to roll over and accept all the loses they have been taking running the team? The team cannot and will not be folded.

Optimally, the NHL would like to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix and have expansion teams.

If they can't keep the team in Phoenix, they stand to recoup more of their money from expansion fee than a relocation fee. In the mean time, each team would get a player off of Phoenix and become that much better.

Folding or relocation are both possibilities if the team can't stay in Phoenix. The only NHL rabid market available are the one's the league likely wants to make expansion fees from (Quebec City, GTA). The other areas such as Seattle, Kansas City and Las Vegas all of their problems and may end up being another Phoenix.

[Zirakzigil]

Optimally, the NHL would like to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix and have expansion teams.

If they can't keep the team in Phoenix, they stand to recoup more of their money from expansion fee than a relocation fee. In the mean time, each team would get a player off of Phoenix and become that much better.

Folding or relocation are both possibilities if the team can't stay in Phoenix. The only NHL rabid market available are the one's the league likely wants to make expansion fees from (Quebec City, GTA). The other areas such as Seattle, Kansas City and Las Vegas all of their problems and may end up being another Phoenix.

Wrong. The NHL owns the team and would get the sale price and relocation fee if the team moved. However with the contract the team currently has to Glendale arena any relocation would have to be agreed upon with the city. If you folded the team to void that you are simply setting up for a major lawsuit that the NHL has no chance of winning. There is zero chance the Yotes fold, especially with the latest reports of everything being finalized with a new owner set on keeping them in Glendale.

[C_worthy]

Wrong. The NHL owns the team and would get the sale price and relocation fee if the team moved. However with the contract the team currently has to Glendale arena any relocation would have to be agreed upon with the city. If you folded the team to void that you are simply setting up for a major lawsuit that the NHL has no chance of winning. There is zero chance the Yotes fold, especially with the latest reports of everything being finalized with a new owner set on keeping them in Glendale.

Exactly.

Plus, if I am a new investor looking for a team, there is no way I am willing to pay a full expansion fee plus all the start-up costs associated with that, just to get a completely crap expansion team when I could have simply bought the Yotes and moved them to my preferred location where I would immediately have a competitive team.

Also, moving the team results in far better treatment of the players aggregately. Instead of a draft distribution of the Yotes players, followed by a subsequent expansion draft, it makes more sense for everyone to just move the Yotes.

Folding the Yotes will not happen - unless there is simply no one that wants a team anywhere. But that is what we have now and why the league is keeping them afloat until there IS a solution.

[gsp393]

How does an expansion team get its players?

[Demonous_Xodus]

How does an expansion team get its players?

A draft is held. All the teams have the right to protect a certain number of players and then the expansion team can pick up players that aren't protected.

[ifiwaschucknorris]

A draft is held. All the teams have the right to protect a certain number of players and then the expansion team can pick up players that aren't protected.

Expansion teams are usually pretty brutal for this reason.

Unrelated but if I had the money I would by Phoenix. Then I could be ifiwaschucknorrisfutureGM.

A draft is held. All the teams have the right to protect a certain number of players and then the expansion team can pick up players that aren't protected.

Expansion teams are usually pretty brutal for this reason.

Unrelated but if I had the money I would by Phoenix. Then I could be ifiwaschucknorrisfutureGM.

[gsp393]

Expansion teams are usually pretty brutal for this reason.

Unrelated but if I had the money I would by Phoenix. Then I could be ifiwaschucknorrisfutureGM.

Expansion teams are usually pretty brutal for this reason.

Unrelated but if I had the money I would by Phoenix. Then I could be ifiwaschucknorrisfutureGM.

If you were chuck norris you would be a gm.

[ConnorFutureGM]

Wrong. The NHL owns the team and would get the sale price and relocation fee if the team moved. However with the contract the team currently has to Glendale arena any relocation would have to be agreed upon with the city. If you folded the team to void that you are simply setting up for a major lawsuit that the NHL has no chance of winning. There is zero chance the Yotes fold, especially with the latest reports of everything being finalized with a new owner set on keeping them in Glendale.

If there was no owner for the Coyotes in Phoenix, there would be no team playing in the arena, regardless if the team is relocated or folded.

It was a hypothetical situation anyways. Since the NHL owns the Coyotes, they could do with it what they want. They obviously want to keep the team in Phoenix. If there was no way to keep them in Phoenix, the NHL could relocate them at Las Vegas, Anchorage or Dubai or they can simply fold and wait for a better hand to be dealt. I was never saying it was likely, I was saying it was a possibility that some people have a hard time grasping.

[DL44]

Anyone in favor of Phoenix contracting?

People have the misconception that getting rid of Phoenix would solve a lot of NHL issues...

But to exemplify how messed up the present system is: if you were to take Phoenix and say the Islanders out of the mix, you are knocking the 2 bottom revenue teams out of the equation... But eliminating the drag these 2 team create on revenue, you would see the League's overall revenue increase... and with that, so would the cap and floor.

All those present middle class teams like Flames that are seeing slight profits or hovering around even, would see themselves jump into the red with any more increased spending that would be required with the present system.

The problem with the system isn't the low revenue teams... it's the 6-8 top end earning teams skewing the curve and the cap way up beyond the rest of league's overall ability to keep up...

The answer - drop the player cost... and/or get those top end teams to subsidize the rest of the league. And there we have our CBA battle.

- my point... the answer which i've seen many post and talk about, is NOT contraction or relocation... it wouldn't solve anything that is presently wrong with the system... It may create a potential for a healthier league when costs/RS get adjusted... but definitely NOT under the present CBA. /end rant.

[echoison]

Just a little side note, I think a better place to Move a franchise would be Seattle, Vancouver could use a close rival and a lot of people in the GVA would go down for games just like they do in Buffalo.

[C_worthy]

Anyone in favor of Phoenix contracting?

People have the misconception that getting rid of Phoenix would solve a lot of NHL issues...

But to exemplify how messed up the present system is: if you were to take Phoenix and say the Islanders out of the mix, you are knocking the 2 bottom revenue teams out of the equation... But eliminating the drag these 2 team create on revenue, you would see the League's overall revenue increase... and with that, so would the cap and floor.

All those present middle class teams like Flames that are seeing slight profits or hovering around even, would see themselves jump into the red with any more increased spending that would be required under the present system.

The problem with the system isn't the low revenue teams... it's the 6-8 top end earning teams skewing the curve and the cap way up beyond the rest of league's overall ability to keep up...

The answer - drop the player cost... and/or get those top end teams to subsidize the rest of the league. And there we have our CBA battle.

- my point... the answer which i've seen many post and talk about, is NOT contraction or relocation... it wouldn't solve anything that is presently wrong with the system... It may create a potential for a healthier league when costs/RS get adjusted... but definitely NOT under the present CBA. /end rant.

Exactly.

And as for the top teams subsidizing the weaker ones, that doesn't work either (it makes the weaker teams profitable without trying, and therefore they aren't motivated to compete - see MLB)

The answer is a simple economic one: lower costs in order to make all teams healthy. THEN, worry about whether the Coyotes should be in Phx, as a separate business decision.

btw, who cares if a few teams make a bunch of cash? Seriousl;y, who frickin cares? All I care about is a healthy, competitive league - and if the league is healthy, the players will continue to make piles of money.

[senor_incendiarse]

Exactly.

And as for the top teams subsidizing the weaker ones, that doesn't work either (it makes the weaker teams profitable without trying, and therefore they aren't motivated to compete - see MLB)

Disagree, you seem to forget the main motivation in sports is to win championships, most owners are arrogant businessmen thats how they got the teams in the first place, you don't invest in a sports team as a financial gain, especially in a small market, you do it because you love the competitive nature of sports. I don't consider teams that have had extended periods of poor management as teams that are content with making small if any profits while being a complete joke to every fan of the sport. I don't consider what the Leafs are doing as a plan, I'm sure they're sick of being run down by everybody.

As for contraction, can't say I ever see it happening with Fehr being around (well can't see any PA head liking the idea). MLB tried it with the Twins and Expos, one relocated and one turned the page completely. I could see that happening in this case too, with the Coyotes as a relocation probability and if the Islanders can improve on ice something might fall in place for a new arena and they can follow in the Twins footsteps. I'm fine with the league at 30 teams, I feel that the talent has now caught up to the rapid expansion of the '90's and its a far better game.

[C_worthy]

Disagree, you seem to forget the main motivation in sports is to win championships, most owners are arrogant businessmen thats how they got the teams in the first place, you don't invest in a sports team as a financial gain, especially in a small market, you do it because you love the competitive nature of sports. I don't consider teams that have had extended periods of poor management as teams that are content with making small if any profits while being a complete joke to every fan of the sport. I don't consider what the Leafs are doing as a plan, I'm sure they're sick of being run down by everybody.

As for contraction, can't say I ever see it happening with Fehr being around (well can't see any PA head liking the idea). MLB tried it with the Twins and Expos, one relocated and one turned the page completely. I could see that happening in this case too, with the Coyotes as a relocation probability and if the Islanders can improve on ice something might fall in place for a new arena and they can follow in the Twins footsteps. I'm fine with the league at 30 teams, I feel that the talent has now caught up to the rapid expansion of the '90's and its a far better game.

I admire your rosy picture of the world, however, my observations don't align with them.

I am not talking about being 'content with making small profits' here - and to be clear, I am in favour of some revenue sharing.

My point was that too much revenue sharing (more than just a little) causes the small market teams to be profitable. Then they realizee that they are actually better off not competing (much like when you are on EI, you are better off not taking a part time job because they cut you off the EI and you are worse off).

You can disagree if you like, but it is a fact of life in baseball. It is not just an opinion that I hold, it is a clear and evident fact for some teams.

[senor_incendiarse]

I admire your rosy picture of the world, however, my observations don't align with them.

I am not talking about being 'content with making small profits' here - and to be clear, I am in favour of some revenue sharing.

My point was that too much revenue sharing (more than just a little) causes the small market teams to be profitable. Then they realizee that they are actually better off not competing (much like when you are on EI, you are better off not taking a part time job because they cut you off the EI and you are worse off).

You can disagree if you like, but it is a fact of life in baseball. It is not just an opinion that I hold, it is a clear and evident fact for some teams.

Provide your evidence and I may respect your opinion, if not its just an uninformed opinion. We've gone on this for a while I create examples and facts you just provide opinion, so show me facts or stop using weak arguments.

[C_worthy]

Provide your evidence and I may respect your opinion, if not its just an uninformed opinion. We've gone on this for a while I create examples and facts you just provide opinion, so show me facts or stop using weak arguments.

what?

was this an example of you creating examples and facts?

Disagree, you seem to forget the main motivation in sports is to win championships, most owners are arrogant businessmen thats how they got the teams in the first place, you don't invest in a sports team as a financial gain, especially in a small market, you do it because you love the competitive nature of sports.

As for me providing evidence, I am not going to type out a whole story on subjects that are already well documented, but I will suggest that you look into the San Francisco Giants and how they handled a season whereby they were in the race for the playoffs and had a chance to invest in the team to make a run.

[senor_incendiarse]

what?

was this an example of you creating examples and facts?

As for me providing evidence, I am not going to type out a whole story on subjects that are already well documented, but I will suggest that you look into the San Francisco Giants and how they handled a season whereby they were in the race for the playoffs and had a chance to invest in the team to make a run.

Hmm, this year or are you talking about another year. This year I like where they are standing right now of course, a pretty sizeable lead in the division. They still have a lot of players leftover from the championship team, there worst starting pitcher is a 2 time Cy Young winner, and they seem to be a better hitting team than 2 years ago. The only areas where I could see them improving on is SS or 1B, but I think there is still potential with Belt that keeping him there might be the best option, sure they could've gone after Gonzalez but the long term nature of that, plus the possibility of having to take on Crawford and Becketts contracts wouldn't be something I'd do. At short the only legit name to come up is Hanley Ramirez but he has really only been a shadow of his former self. Of course losing Cabrera sucks, but the timing wasn't the best either as most available quality outfielders were already dealt. I don't know the Giants farm well, so don't know what type of interest there is in any prospects. Standing pat isn't a bad thing, its not like the Reds or Nationals did a whole lot that I consider significant, so even despite the number of games back they are from the those teams, they still match up well in post season with there pitching and experience.

[C_worthy]

^ sorry, my memory isn't what it used to be...

I meant the San Diego Padres and was referring to 2010 (the Giants were the team that caught and passed them and eventually won the World Series).

The Padres, despite one of the lowest payrolls, had a good team and were in the divisionrace. Did they spend to win? No,why would they? They pocketted their profits which was among the highest in the league - and almost ALL of that profit was revenue sharing.

Why spend in a vein attempt to compete (which they simply can't sustain anyway) when you can keep quiet and pocket among the highest profits in baseball?

It isn't a balanced and competitive system. Teams like them are nothing more than player development centres for the big clubs. And revenue sharing is the life-blood of the system - as log as they co-operate, they remain highly profitable.

[jjgallow]

Pretty complete list, impressive

One quick thought.. what about Jordan Swarz? No love?

This is very much like a draft. I wouldn't pick based on position.

I'd pick BPA, and go from there. Either trade them to the team that really needs them afterward, or more likely:

They bump someone else off your team, and you trade them for an area you need more strength in.

The reason being: You only get one go at it. You have all season to shuffle players around. But this is a one-time handout of value. Take as much value as allowed, and tinker afterwards.

[senor_incendiarse]

^ sorry, my memory isn't what it used to be...

I meant the San Diego Padres and was referring to 2010 (the Giants were the team that caught and passed them and eventually won the World Series).

The Padres, despite one of the lowest payrolls, had a good team and were in the divisionrace. Did they spend to win? No,why would they? They pocketted their profits which was among the highest in the league - and almost ALL of that profit was revenue sharing.

Why spend in a vein attempt to compete (which they simply can't sustain anyway) when you can keep quiet and pocket among the highest profits in baseball?

It isn't a balanced and competitive system. Teams like them are nothing more than player development centres for the big clubs. And revenue sharing is the life-blood of the system - as log as they co-operate, they remain highly profitable.

Ok the Padres made a little more sense, they did make moves as the season went along picked up Tejada who was past his prime and got Ryan Ludwick who seemed like a good addition, he just never panned out for them. They were also faced with the reality that Adrian Gonzalez wasn't gonna be part of the teams future. Which does add to your point about being development centres, but its not like other leagues don't face this issue the NBA right now I'd put as the worst as they have turned into a league that seems fine with having about 4 super-teams and having the other 26 having no legit chance. The NHL will always have the desired locations like New York and the undesired places like Buffalo and Nashville, and even with a cap there are ways to work around it to ensure a team like the Rangers are always in the mix for the top ufa's. What I think baseball gives is the fact teams are never faced with losing an all-star calibre player for nothing, you either trade him or have the ability to gain draft picks if you make a reasonable offer and he walks. There is always a chance for a market turnaround, as I said earlier the Twins went from possible extinction to being a good payroll team, I do think teams like Tampa and a bunch of others could find themselves in better situations if they could average crowds better than 60%.

[C_worthy]

Ok the Padres made a little more sense, they did make moves as the season went along picked up Tejada who was past his prime and got Ryan Ludwick who seemed like a good addition, he just never panned out for them. They were also faced with the reality that Adrian Gonzalez wasn't gonna be part of the teams future. Which does add to your point about being development centres, but its not like other leagues don't face this issue the NBA right now I'd put as the worst as they have turned into a league that seems fine with having about 4 super-teams and having the other 26 having no legit chance. The NHL will always have the desired locations like New York and the undesired places like Buffalo and Nashville, and even with a cap there are ways to work around it to ensure a team like the Rangers are always in the mix for the top ufa's. What I think baseball gives is the fact teams are never faced with losing an all-star calibre player for nothing, you either trade him or have the ability to gain draft picks if you make a reasonable offer and he walks. There is always a chance for a market turnaround, as I said earlier the Twins went from possible extinction to being a good payroll team, I do think teams like Tampa and a bunch of others could find themselves in better situations if they could average crowds better than 60%.

There will always be more attractive destinations, sure. But the goal should be the most level playing field possible. And increased revenue sharing does not necessarily create that.

What does create it is a cap and a floor. And in order for a league to function properly with a floor, all teams need to be able to afford to operate to the floor.

Three ways to get there: increase revenue, lower costs, and increase revenue sharing.

Obviously, everyone attempts to maximize revenues.

My point was that too much revenue sharing is actually ineffective and can even become counter-productive.

The obvious way to maintaining a healthy and competitive league is to control salaries.

Having palyers receive 57% of revenues, when owners take all the risk and pay all the bills, is not a recipe for success.