Polemic Hockey

Yes, I said the Hawks had to prove something and then I would believe in them. They did prove it, but not that much. The Canucks softness lost out to the Hawks toughness and now there are questions about Luongo as a playoff goalie. No definitive judgment yet, but questions.

Out east...well, let's just say I think we've got a rematch of last year in the finals on our hands. Penguins in 6.

Blech.

Update: I'll end the year either 9-6 or 8-7. Not a very good year. I'm going with Fleury. He's been better than Osgood and I think the Pens want revenge. First finals rematch in a long time goes to the Pens in 6.

All of his arguments are without merit.

Number one:

The NHL has that power, yes. But that doesn't make it right. Everything the NHL does should be to make hockey successful. But I can see a single rational business interest served by keeping a team in a market that has demonstrated failure.

Number two:

Cox supplies no facts or arguments to back up that summary conclusion. I have no idea what he means. Maybe he's suggesting that hockey will become popular in Arizona and the next Wayne Gretzky will come from Mesa or Gila Bend. But if he means in terms of revenue, he's off base. The team will make more many in any number of Canadian cities.

And, the worst, number three:

Has Cox ever been to these places? There is no such place as the Sun Belt. It's just a term use to refer to areas of growth that have gained population from colder places. There is no culture, economy, or geography in common with these places. And notice that he omits some other failures: Nashville, Florida, and Atlanta.

The reason this argument is stupid is that none of these places is alike, and none of them is much like Phoenix. Anaheim is part of the Los Angeles media market, the second largest in the US. The Greater LA area is both geographically and demographically giant and diverse.

The LA area features over 130 high school hockey teams, which is one of the highest densities outside of Minnesota. There in no where near that amount of grassroots support in Phoenix, Dallas, Nashville, or any of the other "Sun Belt" areas. I bet you'd be surprised to hear than the San Francisco Bay Area is probably second in terms of amateur teams. I can't verify that, but there is a strong presence there.

Part of this is that the Bay Area had an NHL team 40 years ago, and LA has had a team for a long time. Even if the Kings are the red headed step-child of California hockey right now, there is obviously no problem fan wise with the Ducks or Kings.

Los Angeles can't be pigeon-holed because it is so huge. You can't just say "it's in the Southwest" or "in the Sun Belt." California has about the same population as Canada.

I can't really comment much on why Dallas has succeeded in terms of what's going on in Dallas. I know they have had good ownership. But I can tell you, as multifaceted as Great Los Angeles is, Dallas is a different animal. LA and San Jose probably have as much in common with Canada as it does Dallas.

Nashville and Atlanta are very different places too. They both share southern roots, but Atlanta, like Los Angeles, has so many people that you cannot simply say "Atlanta is..." without excluding huge segments, segments large enough to support things like sports franchises.

The Panthers and Lightning were placed on the idea that there were enough transplants there to support the game and the Ning won a Cup. Super. But the Panthers have been awful.

Cox's last argument is that the NHL has done OK pulling teams out of bankruptcy. With the exception of Washington, all three he lists are hockey hotbeds. Ottawa, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo. None of those places ever face the same lingering doubts over fans. All have proved they exist already. Those were all problems that never would have occurred if the management was good.

At the end of the day, the NHL just doesn't want to admit that it's "Sun Belt" expansion is a success only if 50% is a passing grade, and it isn't in any school I've ever been to, and that's if you measure success only on the basis of Stanley Cups and failure on the basis of financial drama. Teams like the Sharks and Thrashers don't fit neatly into any category, but can't be failures. Are they successes?

All of this sturm and drang over moving a team was absent in the 90s, when Winnipeg and Quebec lost teams. The exchange rate was the prevailing argument, but now we're told to ignore temporary issues? Which is it?

Teams move. They always have. It shouldn't be done as a matter of course, but it should be done when it's clear that the other teams would be better off.

I believe that hockey needs to be firmly rooted in Canada, where it is the number 1 sport. I believe the Coyotes need to leave Phoenix. This means that it makes sense to move the Coyotes back up north, but I don't per se oppose them moving somewhere else. But it can't be another place that the NHL just wants to show it can do well in to prove a point. It should be a solid pick. That means please no Kansas City or Las Vegas. (Though any team in Las Vegas instantly gets Sean Avery just for being in Vegas.)

Hamilton is a sort of strange pick. I think a second Toronto team makes the most sense, followed by a return to Quebec. In the US, I imagine a second Minnesota team would do well, but so might a Portland or Seattle team.

None of this will happen since the NHL does everything it possibly can to suck.

But why is it that there's a call for dramatic reforms of the league every time the Red Wings lose a playoff game? Arturs Irbe was cheating with his pads in 1994, the Devils were cheating or ruining the sport by playing the trap in 1995. And Giguere's pads were too big (even though they measured them) in 2003. In other words, the first explanation is that someone's cheating, not that the Wings lost, or, better that the game needs to be changed so they can just win like they're entitled to.

What about the LaRose non-goal? That was a goal. No eruption over that. This wasn't an OT goal. There's no guarantee the Red Wings win in OT. And it might have just been the hockey gods giving karma to a bunch of bad calls against the Ducks and no call on Holmstrom's elbow to Wiesniewski's face, which just because it wasn't mentioned on Versus didn't meant it didn't happen. It was in the AP report. And it didn't have to be what put him in the hospital to be a penalty—a major even.

The ref should have been in position to see the puck was loose, but my god, all of the whining on this, you'd think it was Brett Hull in 1999.

OK, looks like a Drama Niedermayer tip but that was all Marchant.