Alan-NottsUK:
out of interest why are so many people against expansion?

For me, mainly because of 2 reasons:

Average league talent level drops (in theory anyways) the more teams there are in the league. I think many of us harbor a bit of hatred towards the idea due to the league being a lot more watered down in post 90s expansion. Now, of course, no one looks back at the original six and says “damn it, why did the league ever expand in 1967″ anymore (well if they do, they’re just old codgers).

But when you think about it, going from 21 teams to 30 increases the amount of players in the NHL by over 200 players by today’s 23-man roster standards. That’s a fairly significant jump. 2 more teams isn’t going to kill us, but I’d rather head the other way.

The other lesser reason is that we see these wasted franchise like Phoenix, Atlanta (who were moved of course), and such floundering around in the league with little fan support. I’d rather the NHL cut back 2 teams to 28, have 7 teams in each “conference” and considered moving teams to different markets (such as Seattle, Quebec, etc.).

To a lesser extent, it also makes it a little easier on us to make the playoffs if we only have to finish ahead of 3 teams instead of 4

Anyways, I don’t think the league should think about expanding to new markets.. it should think about moving existing “failed franchises” into those new markets.

Grass&sOIL: I’m not really sure but I thought we normally did alright against pacific teams.

I think we’ve got a real tough conference here. Not just in the case of playing these teams, but we have to finish in points ahead of all those high point teams.

chucker:
Not really sure what to think. San Jose and LA more…could be tough.

I’m not really sure but I thought we normally did alright against pacific teams.