OT - The Return of the Winnipeg Jets?
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=dw-winnipeg051010
In this article by Yahoo Sports' Dan Wetzel, The latest bid to buy the Phoenix Coyotes fell through and the NHL might be forced to move them back to Winnipeg. If any NHL fans out there are like me, this is amazing for a couple of reasons:
1. It could be a big slap in the face to Gary Bettman, which is always good and should happen more often.
2. It is awesome to think that the classic franchises that got screwed could be making a comeback like Winnipeg, Quebec, and Hartford (which makes the best line in the whole article the last line...bring back the whale!) and for the record, Minnesota needs to switch back to the North Stars just to bring back those awesome jerseys.
Any thoughts? Anyone else think this is sweet?
Hockey needs more Canada and less desert. The Bettman-slap is just icing on the cake.
Agreed, more teams in Canada and less in warm American climates that don't have sufficient interest in the game makes sense.
However, I'm curious if they'll be the Jets again (which I'm hoping). When an NFL franchise moves the name stays with the franchise (For Example, when the Houston Oilers became the Tennessee Titans, they took all of Houston's records and rights and when Houston was awarded a new team, they couldn't be the Oilers). They made the owners of the old Browns sign an agreement stating that they could only move to Baltimore if they left the Browns name in Cleveland.
Not sure if the NHL works that way because the League owns all the teams (as was witnessed when the Coyotes filed bankruptcy and tried to sell the team from bankruptcy court and the judge ruled only the NHL has the right to sell its member teams).
I get why Minnesota couldn't bring back the North Stars (since they kept the Stars part and colors when they went to Dallas). I'm hoping they can revive the Jets name although I could never figure out the relevance of the name Jets to Winnipeg and would love an explanantion if anyone knows.
I believe the origin of the Winnipeg Jets name has something to do with the friendship between the original owner of the Winnepeg franchise and Leon Hess, former owner of the New York Jets. Couldn't find a source to confirm it though.
There was a minor league franchise, the Winnipeg Jets, (Western Hockey Association) from which they took the name.
More than anything, at the time that the big-time Jets were formed as a World Hockey League franchise (and later merged into the NHL), they had succeeded in snatching the then-aging Bobby Hull from the Blackhawks, and I think they gave him a share of the franchise as part of a big contract. Hull was the prototypical "franchise player." And, Bobby Hull had played for the old Jets as a Junior.
Bobby Hull = "The Golden Jet."
The Oilers name and rights are owned by the Tennessee Titans (originally the Teneessee Oilers). The new Houston franchise would have had to buy the naming rights, color schemes, etc. back from Tennessee to be able to use them. However in the Phoenix/Winnipeg case, the Jets, logos, color schemes, are still owned by the franchise. So they could just impliment them again (I think so at least) or pick something new if they desire.
Well the Nordiques became the Avalanche when the franchise moved from Quebec to Denver so I doubt there any any requirement to keep the existing Coyotes name. I would think that if the team is moved to Winnipeg, the Jets name would be revived but the buyers might have other ideas. I doubt they would keep the Coyotes name.
from your first cigarette to your last dyin' day.
The League does not own all the teams, only Phoenix, and only because they couldn't find a buyer that they liked. All pro sports leagues in the US have rules that any new ownership group has to be approved by a majority of the other owners (the NBA is going through this right now with the Russian that wants to buy the NJ Nets). It's not that only the NHL has the right to sell the team, but the judge did say that the NHL (through the Board of Governers, or basically the owners) has the right to approve the sale from one ownership group to another, partly to make sure that franchises don't move without league permission. The owners and NHL office did not want to sell to Ballsile because he wanted to move the team to Hamilton, and because of the previous two purchases that fell through (Pittsburgh and Carolina, I believe).
Since it was Winnipeg that went to Phoenix, they franchise retained the name, history, and all of that stuff, so they could bring it back if they wanted.
JeffB
Pittsburgh and Nashville, actually, with Balsillie, and it was his handling of those purchases that got him essentially blackballed from the owners' club - especially since the first owner he tried to run roughshod over was Mario Lemieux. The guy tries to move teams to Hamilton before he owns them and the owners are pretty fed up with his arrogance.
It's not that he wants to move a team to Hamilton, at least not entirely, it's that he's an arrogant snot who completely mishandled his prior attempts at purchasing a team.
I assume you are talking about the classic N* logo. Many do not realize but before they left Minnesota, Norm Green had changed the N* logo to the generic Stars with the same uni style they have kept in Dallas for the last, gasp, 17 years since they moved.
The writing was on the wall when he went from North Stars to Stars.
Doubt we will see the NHL return to either Hartford, QC or Winnipeg. Their time as NHL cities has passed.
From what I understand, the NHL also wants Glendale to cover $25 million or so in potential losses. http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/story.html?id=3012636
As such, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved back to Winnipeg, because there aren't exactly a ton of places to move a team, especially with the economy in the pit.
This was linked at Yahoo Puck Daddy:
http://twitter.com/cbctom/status/13734749960
It is from CBC Reporter Tom Harrington stating that the NHL has Winnipeg on a schedule for next season just in case. That sure makes it seem like there is a pretty good chance they might be in Winnipeg next year.
If I recall correctly KC built a brand new basketball/hocky arena in the hopes of landing a team. Their stadium has just been sitting their unoccupied the last couple of years.
I'd like to see a team in a place like Seattle. I think it'd be very successful there, but they have issues with their local legislature blocking funding for arenas (hence why their Sonics left).
Rarely snows. I have friends and family from MI who live out there and they constantly bitch there are no ice rinks or leagues. They don't even have an AHL team. Think they best team they have is a WHL team.
Can't imagine that any number of Canadian cities wouldn't be in line before Seattle.
You're right, Seattle isn't a great hockey town, but there is plenty of support there for the two WHL teams in the area and all the Canadian cities without NHL teams are way too small to be viable. Edmonton is barely viable, look at the value of the Oilers, it's pitiful.
I'd put Seattle behind a number of cities - KC, Houston, Milwaukee for starters - but still ahead of every NHL-less Canadian city.
Snow has absolutely nothing to do with it, by the way.
You can't say snow has nothing to do with it. It's pretty clear that cities with cold winter weather take to hockey much more easily than warm-weather cities do. Hockey has a hard time attracting casual fans in places where it's too warm to play the sport. Why that is, I don't know, but it's been true for a long time. And it's true in Europe as well.
Areas with a developed hockey infrastructure do better than areas that don't. Places like the Northeast, Canada, and parts of the Midwest have highly successful franchises because hockey is part of the culture. There are local leagues throughout these areas, high schools have teams, colleges have teams, etc. This, in turn, leads to areas being more likely to produce fans of the sport, which leads to a larger fanbase for an NHL franchise.
Now, in areas where it snows a lot and pond hockey was feasible gave cold weather areas the ability to learn and appreciate the sport when hockey rinks were not built all over the place and skating was very much an outdoor activity. This led hockey to be entrenched in cold weather areas, but not warm weather areas. This is no longer the case. That said, it is hard to engrain new sports as part of an area's culture, particularly when the sport is highly expensive, which is why it has been difficult for some warm-weather NHL franchises to develop a fanbase. Not that it is necessary to have a large core of hockey fans to develop a fanbase for an NHL team, but it certainly makes it easier.
We're essentially arguing the same thing. Hockey infrastructure doesn't exist in warm-weather cities, and it's not clear that it ever will. People may not play pond hockey as much as they used to, but ice rinks are a lot more common in cold-weather cities than warm-weather ones.
The real problem for the NHL has to do with television. Sun Belt cities can attract some fans to the arena, but those same fans rarely tune in to watch games not involving their home team. There are fans of the Thrashers, Predators, Hurricanes, etc., but not enough straight-up hockey fans - people who'll watch any NHL game. Can the NHL create a hockey culture there strong enough to not only attract a subculture of diehards but motivate larger numbers of people to casually tune in? It seems to be a very difficult proposition.
I think Seattle could be a good hockey town, in the sense that they haven't had a NHL team yet, so we really don't know yet. It's one of those things that you don't really know unitl a franchise moves out there. Couldn't have predicted Seattle being a boom town for soccer, but after they got an MLS team last year, they blow everyone out in attendance (average ~ 35K per game). They've always supported the Thunderbirds and the other WHL team there.
I think an NHL team would do better there than some of the sourthern places like Houston. Clearly, Seattle is a more viable option that Phoenix, Atlanta, and Florida. The thing is, now that there is no NBA team, and since football finishes at the end of Dec., there are no professional sports in winter in Seattle from January-April. In a large market, an NHL team would do really really well by filling that void. From a makeup point of view, Seattle is exactly like Vancouver, B.C., (which is only 2 hours away) where a hockey franchise is very successful.
FWIW, the last couple of years it's snowed a lot in the winter. Regardless of snow fall, I'd still classify Seattle as being a cold-weather city in the winter (Vancouver has the exact same weather as Seattle). Contrast that w/ Phoenix, Atlanta, Florida, or Houston, and I think it screams hockey a little bit more.
i dunno. as a current seattle resident (belltown woot!), mls has done well because of a combination of strong support from the technology sector and the fact that seattle is full of hippies and hipsters. not that there's anything wrong with that - its just that ive noticed a link between the two. its just the same way that you probably wouldnt expect a nascar circuit to do well up here or an mls team to gain a big following in alabama. basically the demographic of people here is one to which soccer is particularly appealing.
i'd love to see hockey come to seatttle - i'd be first in line for season tix, just so i could see the wings whenever they came to town - but there just isnt the infrastructure in place. i mean, they couldn't even keep their (successful) basketball team around. unless the city puts in the same commitment to building a decent arena (key arena is crap) that did to building stadiums for the mariners and seahawks, bball and hockey will never come to seattle.
You're right about Kansas City - they were the city that was part of the barganing for the Penguins getting their new arena. Not only did they build the arena, supposedly the luxury boxes were mostly sold if they got either a NHL or NBA team (although that was before the economic downturn).
JeffB
The last time that this was discussed seriously, the leading candidates in the U.S. were Houston, Portland, Las Vegas and Kansas City (not necessarily in that order). There are plenty of U.S. media markets that the NHL would prefer to test out before returning to a Canadian market that didn't work (and doesn't have an adequate building).
Yeah, I remember when they switched to the model and logo that was picked up by Dallas. I have a white North Stars jersey from 91 with the N*. Those were the best, and one of the best logos in hockey. I picked up the North Stars jersey back when the NHL went on a retro craze a few years back releasing a bunch of retro jerseys like Minnesota, Quebec, Colorado Rockies, Kansas City and others. I plan on getting a Blue Nordiques and Blue Whalers jersey eventually.
I think more NHL teams in Canada is a good thing. The league needs to be strong where its fan base is strongest.
I just hope this doesn't mean a return of Bob Essensa.
I remember watching sportscenter when the day after the Jets last game, and all the players skated around the ice, throwing their jerseys, sticks, gloves, and other stuff into the crowd. I always thought that was so cool. The thought of the NHL returning to more traditional markets makes sense--I mean, is there really a need for a team in NC, AZ, 3 teams in California, or 2 in Florida...? I realize that these teams have had success in recent years, there are transplants from hockey markets (and that this is only my opinion), but I think that hockey belongs in a place like Quebec City or Winnipeg much more than Phoenix or Raleigh.
it would be sweet if anybody knew what was happening and it wasn't just all in limbo. I have no problem with (re-)moving the Coyotes, but it must suck for all the players/coaches/GMs/etc. to not know where they are going to be, even next season. The Michigan alums likely aren't affected next season unless they move their AHL from San Antonio, but they're probably just a tad worried too...
From the ESPN article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=5179252) it sounds to me like it's mostly the cities' fault too, dropping the ball all over the place. If I recall they were a big obstacle to potential buyers, with what they wanted until things really got bad and now it's really their fault again that they don't have a buyer lined up, with snubbing Ice Edge the first time and then not going with them this time. The ESPN article is a lot meaner to the city, at least (but much nicer to Gary, so I like/trust the Yahoo article much more). I think Winnipeg would be a good move, I think anything Gary is against, I'm for. I just wish there wasn't all the uncertainty. Next week there's going to be another article about how the city reached an agreement and then a week later there's going to be another retraction. Hopefully the week after that something will finally be decided...
Glendale is totally at fault in the short term. Ice Edge, who wanted to buy the Coyotes and fulfill the remaining 24 years on the 30 years, asked for exclusivity in negotiations after the city turned them down over reinsdorf the first time around. Glendale refused, and the situation stands as it is.
Jerry Moyes and the team is at fault in the long run. 6 years of mismanagement led to consistent losing that would drive away any fan. Just look at pittsburgh pre-crosby: terrible attendance and talks of moving to Kansas City.
I really hope my Yotes stay. But I just don't see it. The Glendale council is convinced that they can fill the arena those 41 dates a year with the circus and concerts. Considering the Arena's location on the outskirts of town, about an hour from the larger suburbs of Mesa and Scottsdale, fat chance.
Save the Yotes.
The attitude that hockey "doesn't belong in the desert" is stupid and snobby.
...the fact that the vast majority of people in the southwest do not care about hockey is still a problem. (note: I'm not counting California here)
E-fact:
If the Coyotes move back to Winnipeg, the Red Wings lose one of their significant home crowd advantages. I love watching Phoenix games and seeing thousands of Red Wings fans in the stands.
For that reason alone, I want the team in Arizona, because Winnipeg will pack their stadium and the Wings will have another hostile environment to deal with.
Hockey is relatively new in almost all venues compared to the other three leagues. People compare it to the NBA, MLB, and NFL and blame Bettman for its lack of popularity. Gee, you think that might have anything to do with the fact that for decades it never existed outside its insular, traditional markets?
While the NHL was still fifteen years away from expanding the Original Six, baseball had sixteen teams and was expanding to the West Coast. When the NHL finally made it to 12 teams and was fighting a war with the rival WHA, the NFL had solved its rival league issues and was hosting Super Bowls. Hockey has literally decades of catching up to do in these towns. Phoenix had the NBA thirty years before it had the NHL, duh it's not as popular yet.
The question of whether to move a team away from Phoenix is not whether hockey could ever be as popular as other sports are today in Phoenix. The question is whether the NHL, Glendale, or anyone else can afford to lose $25 million a year while waiting for that to happen. The answer is almost certainly no.
Fair point, but that is only short-term thinking - and it would be the pinnacle of shortsightedness to move the team back to Winnipeg. If they can't make a go of it in Phoenix because it's losing too much money, the team should move somewhere where there's growth potential - and Winnipeg ain't it. Winnipeg is barely half the size of the league's smallest market (Raleigh.)
Namely, where do you move them?
I personally think that the NHL should really think about just chopping a few franchises, which would both enhance the quality of play within the league and drop some of the money pits in the league, but I'm willing to bet that the possibility won't even be considered by the NHL.
You can't just "chop" a few franchises. In order to do so the league would have to buy back the rights to everything from the owners. No owner will vote for a screwjob on some of their fellow owners, so they'll have to pay probably above fair market value. You're talking half a billion just to "chop" two teams. It's totally unfeasible.
Kansas City has been trying hard for an NHL team for several years now. They offered a pretty sweetheart deal to the Pens and then the Preds. Why not KC?
I am aware of the difficulty of chopping teams. In order for that to be feasible, the NHL would have to come into a situation where two owners of franchises were hemorrhaging money and wanted to drop their teams (this is not outside the realm of possibility, but it is unlikely). Even then, there are a ton of issues, such as the noise the NHLPA would make, the politics of dropping two teams, etc. However, I do think that the NHL has over-expanded and would drop a couple teams in an ideal world.
With regard to KC, I can see a couple issues. First of all, it would be a problem for St. Louis, as they aren't exactly doing well financially and assuming that KC falls under the St. Louis umbrella, they could be looking at some damaging revenue losses. I also question how big a TV audience KC would get, although this is tied to the St. Louis issue.
If I were the NHL, I'd think about Portland, especially if they could make a deal with the Trail Blazers and the city to share their arena.
There are probably more Canadians in metropolitan Phoenix than in Winnipeg.
Better question is why does Bettman still have a job? It's not like the NHL has flourished underneath his watch. If anything it has become more of a niche sport and a novelty act since he took the helm. Really who thought the NHL would flourish as a league by moving further into the south with expansion squads and relocation? Its no wonder that some of these expansion squads and southern relocations are some of the least valuable NHL teams out there according to Forbes. So yes I agree that what Hockey probably needs is more Canada and less desert.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/31/hockey-values-09_NHL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html
That link proves your point absolutely not at all. In the bottom third of the league are the Blues, Sabres, Islanders, and Oilers - a Canadian team and three northern ones, one in a massive market, and all four of them old, pre-Bettman teams. It shouldn't come as any surprise that the O6 teams are the most valuable, but Dallas is in the top third, and Anaheim and LA are in the top half, above Calgary which is in the bottom half.
There is absolutely no significant correlation whatsoever to anything other than that the O6 teams plus one of the '67 expansion teams are the most valuable. Obviously.
Somebody!
Hit me with the Whalers goal horn!
I failed trying to embed it,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O2JeVRX3kY (goal horn)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKSpEfPOTo&feature=related
and some brass bonanza since I suck and cannot embed
Hmm
You're right
What's the deal here YouTubez
I love that this might happen. Thanks for the link.
J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS!
in Winnipeg it may end with "ehhh"
the minute i saw this topic, i thought about how much the Guess Who sucked and how lousy the Jets were anyway.
The Jets did suck, I think they took the Wings to 6 the year before they left Winnipeg, if I'm not mistaken Khabibulin (sp) was in net.
However, the Guess Who are amazing.
it was in 1996. i remember that. it was the same year steviey scored his 2OT winner against stl and claude lemieux earned his label as public enemy #1 in detroit.
wouldnt it be something if both times that franchise moved, they played their final game in their home rink against the wings?
Moving back to Winnipeg is a lateral move at best. The problems in Winnipeg still remain:
1.) No suitable arena. They did build a new one a few years after the Jets left, but it isn't really suitable by NHL standards and I doubt they could get funding to build an entirely new arena.
2.) Lack of corporate sponsorship. This is a huge part of a franchises income, and Winnipeg just doesn't have enough support in that department.
3.) Winnipeg is about the size of Youngstown, Ohio. Could you ever see Youngstown supporting a professional franchise? For instance, just because they love football doesn't mean they could support an NFL team.
At least Phoenix has upside. Sometimes all it takes is a little success to attract a following. After winning the Cup, Carolina has built quite the following. Of course I'd love to see hockey in areas where it is most appreciated, and I'm skeptical at times of this constant expansion southward. Still, the answer is not to move back to places where hockey has already failed unless the reasons for said failure have been corrected. In Winnipeg, they have not.