Part Two: Warm Up The Moving Vans In The Desert And On The Island
Ok, I my finally getting to the second half of my blog about franchise movement in the NHL. As any hockey fan knows the NHL Board of Governors unanimously approved the move of the Atlanta Thrashers to Winnipeg Tuesday. Now it was a foregone conclusion that the Thrashers were headed to the Great White North, but for years now all I have heard is that Atlanta and other southern locales are not good markets and a number of cities have been sighted for relocation. Now I have went over this myth (see part one: The Winnipeg Myth) that in the recent past well supported franchises were ripped from “traditional markets” and moved to place that care nothing about hockey. Like “traditional markets” the term you hear as much in hockey circles is “non-traditional hockey markets” i.e.; markets south of the Mason-Dixon Line. The non-traditional tag is a code word for bad markets.
![]()
Well, what follows will show that these tags may be a myth of their own. Looking at who should move the only criteria will be whether or not people show up at the gate for these franchise (so non-traditional market label does not apply). Well, the first one is easy and that is the NHL owned Phoenix Coyotes. The troubles of the Coyotes are well documented and if it wasn’t for the subsidies coughed up by the City of Glendale (at the tune of $25 million) Winnipeg would have gotten their team back instead of Atlanta’s. In 14 seasons in the desert the Coyotes have averaged 14,433 slightly south of the Thrashers (14,885), but better than their old home Winnipeg, were they averaged 12,205 as the Jets. The move to the Jobing.com Arena hasn’t helped the average attendance as they have drawn on average 300 less people over the same number of season in a bigger arena. Whether they get new ownership that keeps them in Phoenix (I doubt it) for the short term, long term I think the Coyotes will be on the move.
![]()
However, surprisingly there is a club that should have put a down payment on moving vans years ago and that is…the New York Islanders. We all know that Atlanta and Phoenix are in “non-traditional” hockey markets but how could a team in a “hockey hotbed” be more deserving to move than those two, that can’t be right. Well once again I am using the metric that people use for Atlanta and Phoenix and that is fans going through the turnstiles. The fact is the Islanders should be on the move. Let me explain the myth of the traditional hockey market is that people in these areas will attend games regardless how bad the team is. It is not like the Islanders don’t have tradition; heck the club has won four Stanley Cups, so how can I even think such a thing. Well, it might come from the fact that over the past 20 years the Islanders have averaged 11,655 that is two decades. The “lesser” New York team has been at the bottom of the league in attendance seven of those 20 seasons and it would have more if not for the Carolina Hurricanes two seasons in Greensboro. The Islanders have been in the bottom five of attendance for all 20 years.
![]()
For some perspective the Thrashers (who according to most of the hockey media are moving because no one shows up to games) in 11 season never finished last in attendance in the League. However, the Islanders managed this feat on five occasions (including last season). In 11 years the Thrashers finished ahead of the Islanders nine times in attendance and averaged 2,093 a season better than the Islanders (Atlanta: 14,885, NYI: 12,792). Before anyone says that the Islanders were bad. Again compared with the Thrashers, New York made the playoffs a total of four times. While the Islanders didn’t make it past the first round like the Thrashers, they did take the Maple Leafs to seven games in 2002, made the playoffs four times (two Atlanta’s one) and won six more playoff games than the Thrashers ever did.
Oh, in the season that the Islanders went to the Eastern Conference Finals (1993) New York averaged 12,036 fans per game. I know people will say they play in an antiqued arena, but so did Chicago and Boston and the constantly sold out in way older arenas and in the Blackhawks case had seen less success (four Cups to three). I read that the Islanders are part of the way to a new arena (link), but in the long run a new building won’t make a difference, the Islanders suffer from chronic low attendance, they are at the league bottom win or lose. So if Hamilton and Quebec need teams those are the first two cities in line, but are anyone else?
![]()
Let’s just be frank these two are easy because their attendance is so bad. So, with that said I am going to use a meter of 15,000 average attendance. This works because Winnipeg’s MTS Centre capacity is 15,015 so if they don’t sell out they will fall under this number and Commissioner Bettman has warned Winnipeggers that they have to sell out to be successful (i.e. keep your team). We will also use the last three season for each team because I think that is how Atlanta was judged. Funny thing is in the last decade (200’s) we had three traditional market teams fall under this metric; Pittsburgh (13,840 from 2001-04), New Jersey (14,716 from 2002-06) and even my beloved Chicago Blackhawks (13,099 from 2003-07). In the case of Chicago and Pittsburgh each have turned it around since they have been winning Cups, however in the Devils case they won a Cup during that time of low attendance.
![]()
So, which club is first in what I will call the red zone (i.e..warm up the vans). Well that team is a surprise because it is Colorado. I mean the Avalanche had the NHL record for the longest consecutive sell out streak of 487 games which started in their first game in Denver until 2006. Times have gotten hard for this once attendance king as the Avalanche have averaged just 14,732 the past three seasons. I know winning has nothing to do with attendance in “traditional markets” so how do we explain this?
![]()
The second club in the red zone is not a surprise coming in slightly better than the Avalanche is the Columbus Blue Jackets at 14,872. In the Jackets defense they have only made the playoffs once, but since that did not count for Atlanta I will throw it out for Columbus as well.
![]()
Now for what we will call teams on yellow alert (that is under 15,000 for the last two years). Batting first is Anaheim coming in at 14,953, oh how the good times have faded since winning the Cup in 2007. Then there is a team already mentioned above that is New Jersey. The Devils are just above the Mendoza line at 15,160 and as the newness of the Prudential Center wears off I think they might dip into the red next season.
By the way, just for the record, in the final three seasons of the last four NHL teams to move Minnesota (11,731), Hartford (12,489), Quebec (14,663) and yes Winnipeg (12,542) would have also been in my red zone. So, I guess the league was justified in moving these clubs after all.
This season I will try and do a weekly (or bi-weekly) red line update to see if anyone will move up or down. Finally I would like to add, there is one club that gets brought up about future teams moving and as you can see they have not been mentioned until now. I like a lot of these media honks in Canada and the Northern U.S. have fingered the Florida Panthers as one of those “failing markets.” However, when you look at the numbers the Panthers are amazing. In the last three years they have averaged 15,484 a game (an average Winnipeg will never match..sorry couldn’t help it). In the last nine years have averaged over 15,000 fans every season and did not make the playoffs once (have set an NHL record of 10 straight years out of the playoffs). I know they are not selling out, but fans are still coming to see the Panthers in good numbers even though they stink. Either they are just stupid or Miami would be a “real hockey market?”
![]()
Just want to add a something to my previous blog about the Winnipeg Myth. I left out the Minnesota North Stars who had even worse attendance in its final days than Hartford, Quebec or Winnipeg. As quoted above the North Stars had terrible attendance in its last three season and the year Minnesota made the Stanley Cup Finals they averaged 7,838 (once again for perspective Carolina’s worst attendance when the team played 90 miles from Raleigh in Greensboro was 8,188. But on the bright side, since the NHL returned to the Land of a Thousand Lakes the Minnesota Wild have averaged 18,398, I guess Winnipeg can look at that number and hope, except their arena only holds 15,015 I guess that is the breaks.
Well, what follows will show that these tags may be a myth of their own. Looking at who should move the only criteria will be whether or not people show up at the gate for these franchise (so non-traditional market label does not apply). Well, the first one is easy and that is the NHL owned Phoenix Coyotes. The troubles of the Coyotes are well documented and if it wasn’t for the subsidies coughed up by the City of Glendale (at the tune of $25 million) Winnipeg would have gotten their team back instead of Atlanta’s. In 14 seasons in the desert the Coyotes have averaged 14,433 slightly south of the Thrashers (14,885), but better than their old home Winnipeg, were they averaged 12,205 as the Jets. The move to the Jobing.com Arena hasn’t helped the average attendance as they have drawn on average 300 less people over the same number of season in a bigger arena. Whether they get new ownership that keeps them in Phoenix (I doubt it) for the short term, long term I think the Coyotes will be on the move.
However, surprisingly there is a club that should have put a down payment on moving vans years ago and that is…the New York Islanders. We all know that Atlanta and Phoenix are in “non-traditional” hockey markets but how could a team in a “hockey hotbed” be more deserving to move than those two, that can’t be right. Well once again I am using the metric that people use for Atlanta and Phoenix and that is fans going through the turnstiles. The fact is the Islanders should be on the move. Let me explain the myth of the traditional hockey market is that people in these areas will attend games regardless how bad the team is. It is not like the Islanders don’t have tradition; heck the club has won four Stanley Cups, so how can I even think such a thing. Well, it might come from the fact that over the past 20 years the Islanders have averaged 11,655 that is two decades. The “lesser” New York team has been at the bottom of the league in attendance seven of those 20 seasons and it would have more if not for the Carolina Hurricanes two seasons in Greensboro. The Islanders have been in the bottom five of attendance for all 20 years.
For some perspective the Thrashers (who according to most of the hockey media are moving because no one shows up to games) in 11 season never finished last in attendance in the League. However, the Islanders managed this feat on five occasions (including last season). In 11 years the Thrashers finished ahead of the Islanders nine times in attendance and averaged 2,093 a season better than the Islanders (Atlanta: 14,885, NYI: 12,792). Before anyone says that the Islanders were bad. Again compared with the Thrashers, New York made the playoffs a total of four times. While the Islanders didn’t make it past the first round like the Thrashers, they did take the Maple Leafs to seven games in 2002, made the playoffs four times (two Atlanta’s one) and won six more playoff games than the Thrashers ever did.
Oh, in the season that the Islanders went to the Eastern Conference Finals (1993) New York averaged 12,036 fans per game. I know people will say they play in an antiqued arena, but so did Chicago and Boston and the constantly sold out in way older arenas and in the Blackhawks case had seen less success (four Cups to three). I read that the Islanders are part of the way to a new arena (link), but in the long run a new building won’t make a difference, the Islanders suffer from chronic low attendance, they are at the league bottom win or lose. So if Hamilton and Quebec need teams those are the first two cities in line, but are anyone else?
Let’s just be frank these two are easy because their attendance is so bad. So, with that said I am going to use a meter of 15,000 average attendance. This works because Winnipeg’s MTS Centre capacity is 15,015 so if they don’t sell out they will fall under this number and Commissioner Bettman has warned Winnipeggers that they have to sell out to be successful (i.e. keep your team). We will also use the last three season for each team because I think that is how Atlanta was judged. Funny thing is in the last decade (200’s) we had three traditional market teams fall under this metric; Pittsburgh (13,840 from 2001-04), New Jersey (14,716 from 2002-06) and even my beloved Chicago Blackhawks (13,099 from 2003-07). In the case of Chicago and Pittsburgh each have turned it around since they have been winning Cups, however in the Devils case they won a Cup during that time of low attendance.
So, which club is first in what I will call the red zone (i.e..warm up the vans). Well that team is a surprise because it is Colorado. I mean the Avalanche had the NHL record for the longest consecutive sell out streak of 487 games which started in their first game in Denver until 2006. Times have gotten hard for this once attendance king as the Avalanche have averaged just 14,732 the past three seasons. I know winning has nothing to do with attendance in “traditional markets” so how do we explain this?
The second club in the red zone is not a surprise coming in slightly better than the Avalanche is the Columbus Blue Jackets at 14,872. In the Jackets defense they have only made the playoffs once, but since that did not count for Atlanta I will throw it out for Columbus as well.
Now for what we will call teams on yellow alert (that is under 15,000 for the last two years). Batting first is Anaheim coming in at 14,953, oh how the good times have faded since winning the Cup in 2007. Then there is a team already mentioned above that is New Jersey. The Devils are just above the Mendoza line at 15,160 and as the newness of the Prudential Center wears off I think they might dip into the red next season.
By the way, just for the record, in the final three seasons of the last four NHL teams to move Minnesota (11,731), Hartford (12,489), Quebec (14,663) and yes Winnipeg (12,542) would have also been in my red zone. So, I guess the league was justified in moving these clubs after all.
This season I will try and do a weekly (or bi-weekly) red line update to see if anyone will move up or down. Finally I would like to add, there is one club that gets brought up about future teams moving and as you can see they have not been mentioned until now. I like a lot of these media honks in Canada and the Northern U.S. have fingered the Florida Panthers as one of those “failing markets.” However, when you look at the numbers the Panthers are amazing. In the last three years they have averaged 15,484 a game (an average Winnipeg will never match..sorry couldn’t help it). In the last nine years have averaged over 15,000 fans every season and did not make the playoffs once (have set an NHL record of 10 straight years out of the playoffs). I know they are not selling out, but fans are still coming to see the Panthers in good numbers even though they stink. Either they are just stupid or Miami would be a “real hockey market?”
Comments
Post a Comment