And now back to the live action . . . Happy New Year to you all!

With the recent revelations that one of teams in the southern US (Phoenix) is receiving advances from the league office for things like advertizing and revenues sharing, many fans and media have raised the c-word: Contraction.

Those that believe that the NHL are best to "contract" one or more teams out of existence are Offside for even suggesting it. Not because it might help the league, but because it isn't realistic.

While traditionalists would love to undo the watering down of the talent pool, statisical theory alone shows that little appreciable gain in the game will result if 23-man rosters are eliminated for 4 teams out of 30. Maybe reducing 4 teams when the league only had 21 teams might improve play noticably but not with 30 teams. Sure a few stars will move. But all it means is that 100 players currently near the same talent as those in the AHL will now be on minor league contracts not two-way contracts.

To say nothing of the lawsuits that the NHLPA would put on the NHL. The settlement to appease the NHLPA would be large. Maybe even larger than the cost of buying out the owners who would throw their teams under a bus for the good of the league.

Now if you believe that any NHL team is worth minimum $80 million, or if you are Katz or Freeman $200 and $193 million respectively, then the cost to buy out those owners will be high for the rest of the league. While future revenues like cable TV rights would only be split 26 ways instead of 30, the upfront cost to do so would put some clubs into insolvency. ($320 to $800 million to buy out 4 teams just isn't worth it, unless you consider that annual revenue sharing stipends will never cease going out to these poor markets. Hmmm?)

With 26 teams cutting cheques, for each team that's $30.77 million USD cash out of pocket. That's a lot of cash to get Phoenix's third line left winger, Miami's fourth line grinder, Atlanta's backup goalie and Nashville's sixth defenceman in the eventual contraction draft!! Then you have to release 4 of your own players on waivers to keep the 4 you just picked up. $31 million cash for essentially nothing in return. Yikes!! Try explaining that to your banker!

Instead of folding teams while paying out that kind of hush money, the NHL will try first to relocate teams again and again around North America. (See the history of the California Golden Seals and Kansas City Scouts for proof.) If and when every last stop is tried, then the NHL will pull out plan B otherwise known as "NHL Europa". Any of these options are much better than contraction in the league's and owners' eyes since there's hope that revenue sharing payments are lessened (hopefully) in the new city and no other cash payouts are needed with relocation.

Needless to say the NHL doesn't need the bad press that is associated with contraction. It sends out a message (especially to the banks lending teams money) that "we couldn't find another buyer for this team", "we couldn't find a city worth moving too" and "we can't possibly expand again once we do this". The house of cards admittingly rapidly comes down with all the bad karma that contraction brings. Baseball was better off relocating the Expos to Washington rather than contracting them and then later expanding to D.C. Imagine the egg to wipe off MLB brass in that scenario?

The irony in all this is that it doesn't matter to the fans of the team in question. If the Jets relocated or were contracted, either way the team isn't playing there anymore. (Some Jet fans undoubtingly would be happy with contraction now looking back at what the Gluckstern-Ellman-Moyes-Gretzky eras have brought to their former team. Oh for the love of Selanne . . . but I digress on that point.)

Cash is King, long before and long after Gretzky played in LA. And in the end, Money itself ensures contraction will never happen.

If you disagree, then let me have it on the Manitoba Mythbuster forum!

Chris
Chair, Manitoba Mythbusters
www.ManitobaMythbusters.com
~ The Reality May Excite You! ~