Quebec Fallout: What the Hell is Going On Out Here?

NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly and the Travel Channel's Andrew Zimmern. Separated at birth?

I was harsh on ruling Gary Bettman a "failure" when it comes to the possible move of the Phoenix Coyotes (or some mystery franchise -- I'm looking at you Dallas) to Quebec City.  Two franchises relocating to cities that have lost teams earlier in your tenure does not necessarily make you a failure.  Nor does one lockout (now two, that may be a problem).  I'll admit, that's a harse assessment.  Bettman has transformed the NHL into a multi-billion dollar industry by spreading the sport to other markets and through TV rights deals.  Plus, he confesses to his mistakes.  I guess that's a good thing, even from a fan's standpoint.  But, I come from an American perspective.  Canadians do not want him to take hockey away from its homeland and place it in the desert or the beach.  Which makes sense, more or less, because although I would like to see more Canadian MLB teams it's hard to imagine the outrage if, say, the Rays moved up north. (By the way, just for fun, I searched "What are good things Gary Bettman has done for hockey?" into Google.  Not a lot of positive reviews came up.  Just FYI.)

Perhaps, though, much of the fuel of my anger comes from this assumption that the Coyotes are already on their way to Quebec.  An assumption, of course.

From the CBC:

NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly was asked on Sunday whether the possibility of the struggling Phoenix Coyotes being relocated to Quebec City was strengthened by the announcement on Sunday. 

"No, there's nothing new here," Daly wrote in an e-mail.

The same Bill Daly that denied any deal was done less than a month ago.  Damn, Daly sounds like one tough hombre.  Do not cross that man.

His response makes sense, though.  The NHL is not going to tip its hand, nor outright say "Oh heck, yeah, that changes everything!"  No, they are playing the game just like everyone else in this situation.  Quebecor, that crazy Saskatoon guy, any and all of the Coyotes possible owners.  Everybody.  What we know is that the NHL is doing everything they can (or have done everything they could for the past three years) to keep the Coyotes at Jobing.com Arena.  Meanwhile, Quebec City and Seattle are building arenas and assembling owner-type people in hopes of getting a wayward franchise.  In reality, Mayflower moving trucks are not converging on Glendale, Arizona as you read this.  Possibly...

And that's where it gets confusing.

Earlier this week we heard about the NHL's "Plan B", their probable contingency plan for the Coyotes if all ownership candidates fall through.  In that contingency plan, the NHL will likely relocate the team to one of three cities: Seattle, Quebec City, or Kansas City.

From PucKChaser:

Kansas City was mentioned as a “in the mix”, but no one has ever explained why. 

That is the money statement, right there.  Quebec makes sense because of what we have seen from Quebecor and the new arena, etc.  Seattle makes sense because of their possible arena deal, and a possible owner attached to said arena.  Kansas City makes sense because of... is it still because of the Sprint Center?  Or AEG?  Barbecue...?  Something does not add up.

Easy answer:  The NHL is full of crap.
Fun answer: We are not being told everything, and the rabbit hole goes much much deeper than we know.  Kansas City, Seattle, and Quebec City.  Those three cities, not any others.  Apparently, they have more significance than Las Vegas or Saskatoon in this case.  We just do not know exactly why.  Obviously, though, the NHL must be on speaking terms with these cities.  Therefore, Bill Daly's comments do not hold much truth.  Then again, they do.  The NHL could care less about new arenas.  Also, not only has the NHL not sold the Coyotes, they have a Plan B.  But, a new Quebec or Seattle arena will not sway that opinion.  What about the owners.  Pierre-Karl Peladeau and Quebecor in Quebec.  Christopher Hansen et al. in Seattle.  Who in Kansas City?  Mystery guy?  Has AEG found someone and nobody knows.  Not likely.  But, what strange goings-on, indeed.

The only thing that might have some truth is that the NHL operates like the Knights Templar, guarding secrets and leaking (possibly) faulty information to keep us all guessing.

Playing with the King of Hearts, knowing it ain't really smart.

Quebec New Arena Deal -- Build It and Someone Might Come (ADDENDUM)

Read this first:

Puck Daddy: New $400 million, 18,000 seat arena in Quebec City to be ready by Sept. 2015

That's ridiculous!  What city would build an arena with one already, and no prospective tenant for --- what, uh, ohhhh...

In fairness, Kemper Arena is past its prime, and Kansas City wanted to embark on a huge downtown revitalization plan.  The Sprint Center was to become a showpiece, an arena that could lure any and all concerts, acts, sporting events, and performances and generate revenue for the city with nearby restaurants and watering holes (i.e. Power and Light District).  Sprint Center was a replacement for Kemper, and it has served that purpose and then some.  It doesn't have a permanent tenant, but it does bring big acts to Kansas City.  In the paraphrased words of Tim Leiweke, "it doesn't need a permanent tenant to be successful."  It can stand alone.  So, does Quebec need a new arena?

In March, Labeaume said that millions of dollars in upgrades would be completed this summer to Le Colisee, the former home of the Nordiques; so should the Phoenix Coyotes -- or any other NHL team given the sharp left turn that happened a year ago -- have to be relocated this summer, a temporary home in Quebec would be available for the next three years while the new arena is being built.

Just a quick look at the ExpoCite, or Colisee Pepsi website, one can see that the building is not short on events.  Pitbull is coming, and OH LOOK an evening with Bryan Adams!!!  Only an evening?!?!

My point is, does a metropolitian area with under one million residents need TWO arenas (or "amphitheaters," as Quebecers call it)?  Obviously, Quebec doesn't need a new arena, they just want a NHL team, again.  That is just a rather specfic use of money.

Good luck to Quebec and Quebecor in their quest for a NHL franchise, but if another team from Gary Bettman's southern influence zone (*cough* Phoenix *cough*) were to move north of the border, I think it might be time to search for a new commissoner.  And, yes, a lot of people will say Bettman sucks already and he has ruined the league blah blah blah, but spreading the game in American markets has been his plight since he started in the '90s, and failing that WILL make him a failure as a commissoner.

But, really, wouldn't we all be a lot happier if every NHL team played in Canada?

ADDENDUM
Okay, maybe not a failure, but it certainly will be a major goal he did not accomplish during his tenure.  Then again, if Phoenix or whoever moves to Quebec, you really can't blame league officials for trying to sustain the league for the future.  There is no doubt Quebec will take to a new team as well as Winnipeg (and a fan of the sport would hope that support will last), but what does the NHL care about more: large markets, or filled arenas?

NHL Ready to Abort Plan Glendale, Begin Operation Coyote Freedom (UPDATED)

First, a little evening reading:

TSN's Darren Dreger Tweet 1

TSN's Darren Dreger Tweet 2

Report: NHL investigating alternative plans for Phoenix Coyotes

What's that, you say?  We've seen this before.  Well, you're right, we have seen this before.

For numerous reasons that may be obvious, but we will not get into right now, it is good from a marketing and sustainability standpoint for NHL (hockey's highest level of competition in, arguably, the world) to have franchises in non-traditional hockey markets.  Some reasons include, but are not limited to: spread the game, open up hockey to new markets, create a wider base instead of just regional (i.e. Canada and the Northeast), large television markets, etc.  That being said, there are numerous negative financial consequences that can occur.  But, that's not the point.

Basically, if the Greg Jamison deal, which gained so much momentum only a short time ago, falls through, the NHL will be more than happy to listen to offers from ownership groups ready and willing to swoop in and carry the team away from Glendale financial hell.  "Plan B", if you will.

Of course, of the possible relocation cities mentioned by Dreger (Seattle, Quebec City, Las Vegas, and Kansas City), KC is the only one with an NHL-ready arena (read: large enough, actually exists, and not crap).  And, of course, that is not the only thing needed to have a franchise (read: OWNER, OWNER, OWNER...).  I'm not saying to start dancing on tables and buy up Coyotes merch in anticipation of the super-duper new KANSAS CITY COYOTES, nor am I saying to be pessimistic and depressed about the NHL ever coming to Kansas City.  Maintain.  The NHL probably won't come here, but then again, the NHL did operate a struggling franchise for three years in a non-traditional market.  I suppose anything could happen.  It's about perspective.

And, at least the NHL has a Plan B, unlike some people :

Haha, it's funny because "Curtis Painter"

Meanwhile, the Mavs are about ready to clinch a playoff berth.  We have a successful club here, and they are already very well supported.  THAT is a good sign.

(UPDATE concerns labeling potential Coyotes owner Greg Jamison by the wrong name.  I said Tim Jamieson, the name of the Mizzou baseball coach, because, apparently, I am dumb.)

Mid-December Kansas City Hockey Related News Report

There are an awful lot of honkeys in this picture.  (Screen cap via)

Just a reminder that the hockey version of the Border War continues Friday, January 20th, 2012 at the Independence Events Center (home of the Mavs).  I cannot promise the hockey will be top notch Division I caliber stuff, but I can promise a good time will be had by hockey fans, Mizzou fans, Kansas fans, and all sports fans alike.  Go here to get tickets.

Also, there is speculation that Craig MacTavish, the current head coach of the AHL's Chicago Wolves (the Mavs affiliate), is a possible candidate for the recently vacated Los Angeles Kings head coaching position.  His only head coaching gig in the NHL was with the Edmonton Oilers from 2000-09, going 301-252-47-56 and losing to Carolina in the 06-07 Stanley Cup Finals.  He is in his first season with the Wolves, and as of this date he is 11-9-4.  He currently coaches two-way Mavs Charlie Effinger, J.P. Testwuide, and Dustin Friesen.  He is also the last player in the NHL to play without a helmet.  Just thought you should know.

Oh yeah, by the way, Mavs goalie extraordinaire "F-bomb" Effinger was called up to the semi-big leagues the other day.  This means the Mavs will once again use their insurance policy, Gerry Festa, in net for the time being.  Brian Mahoney-Wilson will also see time between the pipes.

Hey, how about some NHL stuff?  Sure, why not.  Continue...

Recently, the NHL mulled over an idea to realign the current divisions and conferences setup instead of moving a few teams in the wake of the Atlanta-to-Winnipeg relocation.  You may have heard a lot about this already.  If not, I encourage you to peruse this article from NHL.com.  Basically, the NHL will operate with four geographic-based division/conferences, two with seven teams and two with eight teams.  The top four teams of each div-con will make it to the playoffs, facing off in the first two rounds and then filtering into a final four semi-finals of teams that do not see much of each other.  There are some schedule balancing things in there too, and the article does a good job of explaining how that works.  You may ask, "Why does this matter to Kansas City?"  Well, the optimist in me would love to show you.  Plus, who doesn't like to look at maps???

Let's imagine, "pretend" if you would like, that Phoenix relocates to Kansas City.  Well, according to CBC Sports, KC continues it's role as outcast.

3. Phoenix: The NHL wants to keep the Coyotes in Arizona and will likely adopt the "Atlanta timeline," ie. waiting until the last possible minute before announcing any move. It's been reported the four potential sites are Seattle, Las Vegas, Quebec City and Kansas City. (Technically, the league can't talk to another city until Jan. 1). If it is one of the first two, the team wouldn't have to switch conferences. If it's Quebec, you're looking at the Montreal grouping. Kansas City? No idea.

Let's have a look-see, shall we?

Here is the proposed realignment:

Pittsburgh is highlighted because they are upset about something or another...I don't care and neither should you.

Here is a scenario with the city of Kansas City in the mix:

There, I fixed it.

The whole problem with rearranging teams has to do with rivalries being destroyed, reiterating the fact that Detroit could essentially be placed in any one of these divisions (let that be a lesson to all of you; if you are good at something, others will consider you their rival).  If Detroit must remain a Western team in the div-con of Chicago and Minnesota that will henceforth be known affectionately as the Big Ten, then Nashville or Columbus could be bounced to an Eastern division (possibly Toronto and Montreal's, thus helping their attendance issues), or KC could just be a lone wolf out west, staying in the same division and basically solving nothing.  Or be an independent.  But no, Quebec City will get their precious NHL team back because of snow and tradition or some such nonsense.


If you need a better visual, well, here you go: