"The building challenges for Seattle, Quebec City as NHL markets"
No longer is what Greg Wyshynski doing with these articles in any way constructive or informative. Really, this article seemed to be damage control for the one he wrote the other day basically saying how great it would be if Seattle had an NHL team, and then posted a video with Gary Bettman saying nothing about Seattle. It was some hard-hitting journalism, I tells ya!
Enough is enough, though, and Wysh is not the only one doing it. Look, no one wants to move a team (the Coyotes) to Seattle right now. No one (viable owners) wants to move a team to Kansas City right now, although the people that own the local arena (AEG) probably wouldn't mind. Some people want to move a team to Quebec City, but they are not as forceful as True North and the city is dragging its feet on an NHL-caliber arena. No one but maybe some guy Gary Bettman goes fishing with wants to move a team to Las Vegas right now. It is what it is. If anything, owners are selling teams. The Blues, Stars, etc. to more or less operate in the same cities. It's cheaper than moving. The Devils and Coyotes fit into a category of NHL money hemorrhagers, but it is hard to see an established organization like New Jersey to just pick up and leave town to go to a market with more questions than answers.
The argument against KC and QC are "well they had a team and now it's someone else's turn." Obviously, those arguments are ineffective and pointless, causing more arguments than actually giving evidence towards solving one. So what? Minnesota had their chance with the North Stars, right? Winnipeg had their chance already? Didn't Atlanta already get a chance? What about Northern California? Just by saying someone had their chance already does not make a city or area's hockey community any smaller or weaker. Plus, that ignores the whole business-side of things. If someone sees a good investment (i.e. no lease payments for an arena) with minimal risk, the deal can get done. This also deflects from the reasons why Seattle has never housed an NHL team. It's not like there is a pecking order, and Seattle drew the short straw in 1917 and are just now getting a crack at housing an NHL franchise.
What certainly doesn't help is our very own The Pitch's myopic view on things. Wysh links to Jonathan Bender's article in The Pitch, calling KC "emo" due to the advent of the Seattle issue. Although Bender's article does raise a good question (when is the Sprint Center too old to attract suitors?) it plays to the whole notion that Seattle is just lying in waiting for Bettman and the NHL to say "ohhh, I'm so sorry Glendale, but time is up. You lose. It looks like your team will be moving to Seattle. But we have some lovely parting gifts..." I use the term myopic to describe this article, but perhaps that is not fair. It's not fair, because all Mr. Bender is doing is giving a very broad local reaction to an article from NBC Sports talking about how Seattle is such a great fit for the NHL. The NBC Sports article is, like the multiple articles on Puck Daddy, PURE SPECULATION. Observe:
Ahem.
But, let's compose ourselves for a moment. How about a few questions for the pro-NHL to Seattle crowd. Who will own this team? Do the citizens even want the NHL? Are city officials even willing to ponder an NHL team? Will an arena deal even get traction? How will they pay for a new arena? Is "Let's do something indoors" weather like "Rainy day" weather, or more on par with "Let's not go out to eat tonight, I had to work all day and am kind of tired" weather? Why is Seattle housing many of the nation's rich people? Aren't Seattleites too laid back to care about hockey? And maybe the biggest question, will Gary Bettman let the Coyotes out of Glendale?
This is an injustice to actual Journalism, with a capital J. This is a story for the sake of a story. No city has ever been the "leader in the clubhouse" for the Coyotes; that is not a real thing that has ever existed. Words of advice to our hockey loving friends in Seattle: Don't get your hopes up.
This makes me lightheaded.
(P.S.: Wysh runs a great blog, but I just do not agree with this particular topic. Read it for the other good work, though. And Seattleites, I do not intend to be mean with my words of advice, but the citizens of Kansas City have seen this before firsthand.)
No longer is what Greg Wyshynski doing with these articles in any way constructive or informative. Really, this article seemed to be damage control for the one he wrote the other day basically saying how great it would be if Seattle had an NHL team, and then posted a video with Gary Bettman saying nothing about Seattle. It was some hard-hitting journalism, I tells ya!
Enough is enough, though, and Wysh is not the only one doing it. Look, no one wants to move a team (the Coyotes) to Seattle right now. No one (viable owners) wants to move a team to Kansas City right now, although the people that own the local arena (AEG) probably wouldn't mind. Some people want to move a team to Quebec City, but they are not as forceful as True North and the city is dragging its feet on an NHL-caliber arena. No one but maybe some guy Gary Bettman goes fishing with wants to move a team to Las Vegas right now. It is what it is. If anything, owners are selling teams. The Blues, Stars, etc. to more or less operate in the same cities. It's cheaper than moving. The Devils and Coyotes fit into a category of NHL money hemorrhagers, but it is hard to see an established organization like New Jersey to just pick up and leave town to go to a market with more questions than answers.
The argument against KC and QC are "well they had a team and now it's someone else's turn." Obviously, those arguments are ineffective and pointless, causing more arguments than actually giving evidence towards solving one. So what? Minnesota had their chance with the North Stars, right? Winnipeg had their chance already? Didn't Atlanta already get a chance? What about Northern California? Just by saying someone had their chance already does not make a city or area's hockey community any smaller or weaker. Plus, that ignores the whole business-side of things. If someone sees a good investment (i.e. no lease payments for an arena) with minimal risk, the deal can get done. This also deflects from the reasons why Seattle has never housed an NHL team. It's not like there is a pecking order, and Seattle drew the short straw in 1917 and are just now getting a crack at housing an NHL franchise.
What certainly doesn't help is our very own The Pitch's myopic view on things. Wysh links to Jonathan Bender's article in The Pitch, calling KC "emo" due to the advent of the Seattle issue. Although Bender's article does raise a good question (when is the Sprint Center too old to attract suitors?) it plays to the whole notion that Seattle is just lying in waiting for Bettman and the NHL to say "ohhh, I'm so sorry Glendale, but time is up. You lose. It looks like your team will be moving to Seattle. But we have some lovely parting gifts..." I use the term myopic to describe this article, but perhaps that is not fair. It's not fair, because all Mr. Bender is doing is giving a very broad local reaction to an article from NBC Sports talking about how Seattle is such a great fit for the NHL. The NBC Sports article is, like the multiple articles on Puck Daddy, PURE SPECULATION. Observe:
"As we wrote back in December, there are lots of things Seattle's got going for it:This is what passes for acceptable writing nowadays, folks. And The Pitch's blog LINKS TO THIS! So, now, nationally recognized writers (Greg Wyshynski) look at this reaction in KC, believe KC is bitter, and it fuels their argument that has no basis in fact and has taken on a life of its own. The NBC Sports article even links to a story from the Winnipeg Free Press calling Seattle the "lead horse" when it comes to relocation cities, without giving any other reasons. It just is, I guess. It's just as baseless as any other article on the same topic. It's like a bunch of media outlets got together to write the same story, then linked to each other's stories to generate buzz for something no one has talked about in the history of ever!
-- Large metro population
-- Plenty of rich people (editors note: BWHAHAHAHAHAA who writes this?!?!)
-- High-profile companies like Amazon.com, Starbucks and Microsoft
-- Close enough to draw from Portland and Vancouver
-- "Let's do something indoors" weather during the winter"
Ahem.
But, let's compose ourselves for a moment. How about a few questions for the pro-NHL to Seattle crowd. Who will own this team? Do the citizens even want the NHL? Are city officials even willing to ponder an NHL team? Will an arena deal even get traction? How will they pay for a new arena? Is "Let's do something indoors" weather like "Rainy day" weather, or more on par with "Let's not go out to eat tonight, I had to work all day and am kind of tired" weather? Why is Seattle housing many of the nation's rich people? Aren't Seattleites too laid back to care about hockey? And maybe the biggest question, will Gary Bettman let the Coyotes out of Glendale?
This is an injustice to actual Journalism, with a capital J. This is a story for the sake of a story. No city has ever been the "leader in the clubhouse" for the Coyotes; that is not a real thing that has ever existed. Words of advice to our hockey loving friends in Seattle: Don't get your hopes up.
This makes me lightheaded.
(P.S.: Wysh runs a great blog, but I just do not agree with this particular topic. Read it for the other good work, though. And Seattleites, I do not intend to be mean with my words of advice, but the citizens of Kansas City have seen this before firsthand.)
