Could the Twin Cities support two NHL Teams if... (Minneapolis: credit, school)

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by knke0204

More money in Dallas?

You mean 'The State of Hockey', the state that produces more NHLers than anyother state? The state that's home to Herb Brooks and 12 Olympians on a 20 man roster in 1980? Home to the infamous State Hockey Tournament?

Yep.

The home of Reunion Arena (in 1993, when the move took place). It wasn't new then (it was built in 1980) but it was a lot newer than Met Center and had more seats. Further, the Dallas area had/has a subtantially larger population base from which to draw. The North Stars drew pretty anemic crowds their last few season, generally occupying the bottom third of the league in attendance (and they only led some teams because those teams played in stadiums with a maximum capacity even lower than the average North Stars attendance).

Also, the "new thing in town" tends to guarantee crowds for at least the first few seasons. Green sold the Stars in 1995 for $84 million. I don't know what he paid for them in 1990, but it wasn't anywhere close to that. He made a tidy profit (and I seem to recall that he subsequently lost it in a bankruptcy?). Dallas Stars were just worth more than the Minnesota North Stars, silly as that may seem. A lot of owners do the quick-turnaround, make-a-few-fast-bucks sort of thing. Red McCombs seemed a lot more interested in that than actually building a football team, for example (and you can bet he'd have moved the team to San Antonio in a flash if they'd dangled a sweetheart stadium deal in his face).

Somewhere in my box of a few dozen old newspapers I have the StarTribune from the day after the North Stars final game with the headline "Now They Belong To Dallas".

This is what seems so crazy to me. I find it hard to take the 'State of Hockey' campaign seriously when we've had a team move to Dallas just 15 years ago. (15 years before the Wild started using the 'State of Hockey' claim) and the MN Legislature passed something officially making MN the 'State of Hockey'.

Was it a matter of poor franchise managment?
I know that the NHL had it's problems throughout the 1990s, is this a result of that?

After moving to Dallas, weren't they the 'Dallas Lone Stars' for one season?

I don't recall them being the Lone Stars, just speculation that that might be the name they would adopt.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Per wikipedia.org:

A compromise was implemented for the 1990–91 season whereby the Gund brothers were awarded an expansion team in the Bay Area, the San Jose Sharks, that would receive players via a dispersal draft with the North Stars. A group previously petitioning for an NHL team in the Bay Area led by Howard Baldwin and Morris Belzberg bought the North Stars as part of the deal. Baldwin and Belzberg purchased the team from the Gund brothers for approximately $38.1 million (including $1 million in liabilities as well as giving the Gunds their share of the fees from the next three expansion teams, expected to be $7.14 million). Norman Green, a last-minute newcomer to Baldwin and Belzberg's group, purchased 51% controlling interest in the North Stars from them, with Baldwin and Belzberg sharing the remaining 49% stake in the team. Green agreed to purchase Baldwin's 24.5% share, giving him more than 75% control of the team, shortly after a dispute with Baldwin arose. Belzberg maintained his share of the rest of the team's stock until October 1990, when Green became the sole owner by buying Belzberg's shares.

So he buys the club for $38.1 million and sells it 5 years later for $84 million....Green scored a nice little profit on this investment. I still hate his guts though.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

Yep.

The home of Reunion Arena (in 1993, when the move took place). It wasn't new then (it was built in 1980) but it was a lot newer than Met Center and had more seats. Further, the Dallas area had/has a subtantially larger population base from which to draw. The North Stars drew pretty anemic crowds their last few season, generally occupying the bottom third of the league in attendance (and they only led some teams because those teams played in stadiums with a maximum capacity even lower than the average North Stars attendance).

Also, the "new thing in town" tends to guarantee crowds for at least the first few seasons. Green sold the Stars in 1995 for $84 million. I don't know what he paid for them in 1990, but it wasn't anywhere close to that. He made a tidy profit (and I seem to recall that he subsequently lost it in a bankruptcy?). Dallas Stars were just worth more than the Minnesota North Stars, silly as that may seem. A lot of owners do the quick-turnaround, make-a-few-fast-bucks sort of thing. Red McCombs seemed a lot more interested in that than actually building a football team, for example (and you can bet he'd have moved the team to San Antonio in a flash if they'd dangled a sweetheart stadium deal in his face).

Somewhere in my box of a few dozen old newspapers I have the StarTribune from the day after the North Stars final game with the headline "Now They Belong To Dallas".



I don't recall them being the Lone Stars, just speculation that that might be the name they would adopt.

Wow, interesting. See, getting way better info through here than, 'wikipedia', thanks!

[alisaLucas]

Actually, articles on sports franchises tend to be the most cited independent articles that exist on wikipedia, as well as data on cities and their histories. You just have to read wikipedia, much like any other news site with an opinion filter. If something's not backed up by any factual, proven and plausible evidence, then it's just opinion.

But yeah, the two sports franchise thing has been tried before. It won't work.

Read up on the history of the Fighting Saints and why the TC will never have two NHL franchises.

WHAhockey.com - Minnesota Fighting Saints. To have a successful two team sports market, you have to have

Not to mention that most two team sports markets were relics of when there were two competing leagues in that particular pro sport. Bay Area has the Raiders and the 49ers based on the NFL and AFL trying to muscle into the Bay area, New York has the Jets and Giants because they were both AFL and NFL teams respectively, and the NHL has the Islanders and the Rangers because they were both in competing leagues, although the Islanders were mainly a Suffolk County/Long Island team and the Rangers are mainly a Manhattan team.

[knke0204]

What about the Cubs and White Sox? Clippers & Lakers? Angels & Dodgers? Mets & Yankees?

[northstar22]

Originally Posted by knke0204

What about the Cubs and White Sox? Clippers & Lakers? Angels & Dodgers? Mets & Yankees?

The Cubs and White Sox are in different leagues - one is American League, and the other is National League. Both teams were formed at a time when the AL & NL were truly separate leagues. Ditto for the Mets and Yankees. The Angels are far enough away from the Dodgers as to have their own separate market (Anaheim vs. LA). The Clippers and Lakers - I can't explain that one. The Lakers are a storied franchise, and the Clippers are perennially abysmal. Are there any actual Clippers fans, anyway?

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by Slig

Per wikipedia.org:

So he buys the club for $38.1 million and sells it 5 years later for $84 million....Green scored a nice little profit on this investment. I still hate his guts though.

Interesting - I looked and couldn't find the price Green paid for the North Stars.

Oh, I'm not disputing anyone's contempt for Norm Green! Plenty of owners want to win, after all. But there's always some who just want to turn a buck...

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by alisaLucas

Actually, articles on sports franchises tend to be the most cited independent articles that exist on wikipedia, as well as data on cities and their histories. You just have to read wikipedia, much like any other news site with an opinion filter. If something's not backed up by any factual, proven and plausible evidence, then it's just opinion.

But yeah, the two sports franchise thing has been tried before. It won't work.

Read up on the history of the Fighting Saints and why the TC will never have two NHL franchises.

WHAhockey.com - Minnesota Fighting Saints. To have a successful two team sports market, you have to have

Not to mention that most two team sports markets were relics of when there were two competing leagues in that particular pro sport. Bay Area has the Raiders and the 49ers based on the NFL and AFL trying to muscle into the Bay area, New York has the Jets and Giants because they were both AFL and NFL teams respectively, and the NHL has the Islanders and the Rangers because they were both in competing leagues, although the Islanders were mainly a Suffolk County/Long Island team and the Rangers are mainly a Manhattan team.

Actually, the Islanders were an NHL expansion team (and the Rangers one of the Original Six). And don't forget the New Jersey Devils, who relocated from Denver (and who are actually closer to New York city than the Islanders).

The NHL also expanded to the Los Angeles area (Anaheim) when there was already a team there. But leagues have only done this rarely, and then only in the biggest of metropolitan areas.

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by flyingwriter

The Cubs and White Sox are in different leagues - one is American League, and the other is National League. Both teams were formed at a time when the AL & NL were truly separate leagues. Ditto for the Mets and Yankees. The Angels are far enough away from the Dodgers as to have their own separate market (Anaheim vs. LA). The Clippers and Lakers - I can't explain that one. The Lakers are a storied franchise, and the Clippers are perennially abysmal. Are there any actual Clippers fans, anyway?

Are you saying that the Mets came into Baseball when the NL and the AL were still really autonomous leagues?

Because I'm sorry, but that's not even close to true. The Mets came in in 1969. The NL and the AL had been playing the All-Star game for over forty years by then; they had been playing the WS for the title of 'champion of baseball' for almost seventy.

Trust me, it was just 'MLB' by the time the Mets came into play; the AL and NL were not competing economically anymore...

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by Slig

it is far more likely that a place like Chicago or New York could support another team.

New York already has two NHL teams....do you mean to suggest they could support a third?