Vegas Golden Knights......Really....?

[Philly29]

Golden Knights, that's the name..... VGK..... I don't know guys I really don't know. Sounds like a hockey comedy movie or a made up team on NHL EA sports game.

 

Or a beer league team name. What does everyone think? Wasn't there any other cities needing a hockey team, I mean couldn't they just transplant a team that has a crappy fan base?

 

How the hell does Vegas get a team and then call them the Golden Knights, forgive me for being possibly to provincial but I don't I......who knows maybe I'm being to harsh.

[flyerrod]

It looks and sounds like UCF (University of Central Florida), team name The Golden Knights.........

UCFKnights.com | UCF Knights

ucfknights.com/

Official web site of the Golden Knights

[NRH]

Still not sure why teams like Arizona and Nashville were not simply dissolved when announcing this new team. If you want higher scoring the best way to achieve it is by reducing the overall number of teams spreading the players thin. 30 first and second liners being spread across the league would almost certainly increase the number of goals per game and eliminate a lot of goons that the NHL hates so much (in John Scott we trust)

[WordsOfWisdom]

1 hour ago, Philly29 said:

Golden Knights, that's the name..... VGK..... I don't know guys I really don't know. Sounds like a hockey comedy movie or a made up team on NHL EA sports game.

 

Or a beer league team name. What does everyone think? Wasn't there any other cities needing a hockey team, I mean couldn't they just transplant a team that has a crappy fan base?

 

How the hell does Vegas get a team and then call them the Golden Knights, forgive me for being possibly to provincial but I don't I......who knows maybe I'm being to harsh.

 

Within five years it'll be called the Vegas Knights.  

 

My feelings on the team are as follows:

• Until the NHL puts a franchise back in Quebec City and/or a second team in Toronto (or somewhere nearby like Hamilton) where real hockey fans exist in the most under-served market in the world, then I will refuse to acknowledge the existence of this team and will never post about them or their players. Total blackout treatment. If/when the Leafs play them, I won't watch those games either. I will make a very clear statement that I do not support my hard earned money going into the revenue sharing that the Leafs pay out for another deadbeat desert team.

[Philly29]

1 hour ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Within five years it'll be called the Vegas Knights.  

 

My feelings on the team are as follows:

• Until the NHL puts a franchise back in Quebec City and/or a second team in Toronto (or somewhere nearby like Hamilton) where real hockey fans exist in the most under-served market in the world, then I will refuse to acknowledge the existence of this team and will never post about them or their players. Total blackout treatment. If/when the Leafs play them, I won't watch those games either. I will make a very clear statement that I do not support my hard earned money going into the revenue sharing that the Leafs pay out for another deadbeat desert team.

I am American and obviously a Flyers fan and I agree with everything you said. Plenty of fan bases out there that deserve and would relish the chance of having a team again or for the first time, especially Canada.

[WordsOfWisdom]

8 hours ago, Philly29 said:

I am American and obviously a Flyers fan and I agree with everything you said. Plenty of fan bases out there that deserve and would relish the chance of having a team again or for the first time, especially Canada.

 

Off the top of my head:

• Quebec City
• Toronto (New York has two teams, why not us?)
• Hamilton
• Seattle
• Hell, put a team in Cleveland, Kansas City, or Baltimore. You have a better chance there than in Vegas. Las Vegas is actually the worst possible place in North America to put a sports team and there's a reason nobody does it: Vegas has so many other forms of entertainment to compete with, and a population that is largely transient. It's a tourist destination, but not an ideal place to live. There is also precedent (with the Coyotes) for teams not succeeding in that geographic area.
• 
•  

[radoran]

10 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

• Until the NHL puts a franchise back in Quebec City and/or a second team in Toronto (or somewhere nearby like Hamilton) where real hockey fans exist in the most under-served market in the world, then I will refuse to acknowledge the existence of this team and will never post about them or their players. Total blackout treatment. If/when the Leafs play them, I won't watch those games either. I will make a very clear statement that I do not support my hard earned money going into the revenue sharing that the Leafs pay out for another deadbeat desert team.

 

Quebec City didn't come up with the money for a franchise.

 

And the only thing stopping a second team in Tronno is the Tronno Maple Leafs.

 

Likewise Hamilton (with a shout out to Buffalo).

 

So if you want to "media blackout" anyone because the NHL hasn't put a team where you'd prefer they be put - look no further than your avatar.

[radoran]

11 hours ago, Philly29 said:

How the hell does Vegas get a team

 

There were about $500 million reasons.

[mojo1917]

Sounds too much like Golden Showers to me.

 

A hockey team in Baltimore wouldn't work because of the proximity to the Capitals.

 

I agree putting hockey teams in the desert feels like a counter-intuitive way to grow the league, I know it's tempting because money... but for me; Seattle or Hamilton would be better choices than Vegas.     

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Vegas Golden Knights.

 

To me, doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, and I too don't think LV was the best idea for a new franchise ever conceived, but I think, given time, the name may grow on me.

 

And I also agree with @WordsOfWisdom that in time the name may be shortened to just "Knights" (which I actually like better....Las Vegas Knights or Nevada Knights)....after all, the Anaheim Ducks were once The Mighty Ducks of Anaheim!

And the name "Ducks" itself seemed silly at first, but now seems pretty normal........besides, how can one consider water fowl like ducks to be silly when the league already has silly birds named 'penguins' in it...

 

As for the geographic location and "fanbase", well, that one is going to be a challenge.

But taking the mentioned Arizona Coyotes....look the Yotes seem like they are going to make a real effort to set roots in the desert for ice hockey (as unlikely as that sounds to ANYONE), with their new arena and location (Glendale to Tempe).

 

If the Yotes can really make it work in the desert, it should give hope for the Knights' ownership...although the acknowledge transient nature of Las Vegas (even moreso than places like Florida and Arizona) are going to make that EXTREMELY challenging.

 

It is too bad places like Seattle and Quebec don't have teams.....but as @radoran mentioned, basically money talks and you-know-what takes a hike.

And yea, the Leafs themselves don't want other teams sniffing around their turf, so they are SURE to protest extra NHL franchises within their "jurisdiction".

 

After all, can't have some upstart teams succeed in a major market like Toronto where the Leafs themselves have failed for the last 50 or so years, right?

 

But back to the Knights (see, I am dropping the 'Golden' and calling them that already!), I will give them a chance.

Mostly to see how ownership handles the franchise.

 

I have seen some clown ownership in the past (**cough, mid 2000's Lightning...**COUGH**), so I sincerely hope ownership does all they can, from good marketing, to investment of finances BACK into the team, to hiring REAL hockey people (not just big names) to run the team on a day to day basis, to signing legit NHL players (some of which may cost some serious $$$) and not just rely on fringe NHL'ers just to save a buck or two.

 

If ownership can do that, the Las Vegas Knights may have a shot at longevity.

 

Worse case scenario?

Ownership really does all they can to make Gary Bettman's half baked idea work, but they still don't see the right results...they THEN move an established LV Knights team to a better market like Quebec or Seattle.......... ironic indeed, no?

[WordsOfWisdom]

5 hours ago, radoran said:

So if you want to "media blackout" anyone because the NHL hasn't put a team where you'd prefer they be put - look no further than your avatar.

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

5 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

Sounds too much like Golden Showers to me.

 

LOL I thought the same thing.

 

5 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

I agree putting hockey teams in the desert feels like a counter-intuitive way to grow the league, I know it's tempting because money... but for me; Seattle or Hamilton would be better choices than Vegas.  

 

The only reason Bettman's desert "strategy" works is because these teams are being funded by the top 10 wealthiest franchises in the league through revenue sharing. They find some dumb owner willing to lose his shirt, bleed him dry, and then the other teams are left to prop up the franchise.  

[Podein25]

People are saying that the "Golden" is an attempt to capitalize on Trump's win and ask things golden.

[hf101]

[jammer2]

9 hours ago, mojo1917 said:

Sounds too much like Golden Showers to me.

 

OK...spit out a mouth full of Kool-Aid (surprisingly not orange flavoured) reading that line......ha hah ha...

[jammer2]

21 hours ago, NRH said:

Still not sure why teams like Arizona and Nashville were not simply dissolved when announcing this new team. If you want higher scoring the best way to achieve it is by reducing the overall number of teams spreading the players thin. 30 first and second liners being spread across the league would almost certainly increase the number of goals per game and eliminate a lot of goons that the NHL hates so much (in John Scott we trust)

 

 The biggest reason, the NHLPA would never, ever agree to this. They want MORE paying members, not less....they would literally freak and attempt to block it ...big time.

[flyercanuck]

Damn...I really wish Philly would have named the team the Orange Flyers. Or The Philadelphia Orange and Black with a bit of White Flyers. That just rolls off the tongue.

[ruxpin]

2 hours ago, flyercanuck said:

Damn...I really wish Philly would have named the team the Orange Flyers. Or The Xfinity South Philadelphia Orange and Black with a bit of White Flyers of Philadelphia . That just rolls off the tongue.

I liked it. I just thought I'd tweak it to make it slightly easier to say. 

[SpikeDDS]

My $.02:

 

Golden = useless. I agree that within weeks, not months, people will be referring to them as the Knights or Las Vegas kNights.

 

This is 100% about MONEY and PARTY. I listen to many of the hockey writers, and to a person, they ALL want to go to Vegas to cover meetings and events that are there. NHL leadership also like going there. It's fun for them. (How nice!) The members of the media have personal desire to go there for the same reason. Do I believe that positive bias factors in to the decision to put a team there? Yes I do. Not as important as the money, but still a significant factor.

 

And where in this matrix is the good of the game? It's

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

way down here somewhere.

 

To me, this is even MORE contrivance. For some dang reason Bettman thinks he knows better how the game should be. The trouble is that every so often, a blind squirrel DOES find a nut. Although purists like me don't like the 3-on-3 overtime on principle, I will concede that it HAS made OT more fun to watch, even if it isn't the same game. I might also give him credit for the hard salary cap. That HAS brought more parity than existed before--even at the expense of my Red Wings.

 

But most of the remainder of his experimentation has failed over time. To even hint that the Arizona franchise has been anything remotely resembling a success is completely dishonest. This seems worse than that to me--other than the initial money. And adding all the teams he has added without subtraction has certainly thinned out the talent and lowered the level of play.

 

And it appears that he hasn't learned a lesson that he should: Markets MATTER! Anyone who needs a rehash of that lesson, see Atlanta, where I live. Though I was very sad to see the Thrashers leave, it made total sense. (I will admit that 10 losing seasons in a row very likely had something to do with its demise. Same will happen if the LGBT...I mean LVGK lose for 10 years also.) I really struggle to see a market in Vegas, especially once they get another major sport placed there to compete with it. That absolutely killed the Thrashers' chances in Atlanta.

 

I just wish Bettman would keep his dirty little fingers out of things and just let real markets drive the growth of the game.

 

Ok, that was $.03. Bill's in the mail.

[WordsOfWisdom]

19 hours ago, jammer2 said:

8 hours ago, SpikeDDS said:

Although purists like me don't like the 3-on-3 overtime on principle, I will concede that it HAS made OT more fun to watch, even if it isn't the same game. I might also give him credit for the hard salary cap. That HAS brought more parity than existed before--even at the expense of my Red Wings.

 

 

 

Sometimes I feel like the NHL operates kind of like the WWE in that they try to script things and control the outcome, and they maintain kayfabe when questioned about it by fans or media. 

 

(Deep intellectual thought bubble coming... )  

 

First off, let's start with the officiating. If you've ever judged something before (in any competition or sport) you will know that the judges are told what to score and how to score it. In the NHL, refs are told what is/isn't a penalty. Simple concept right? Except that refs are also told when to call penalties and when not to as part of something called "game management". ie: Swallow the whistle in OT.  Don't call five straight penalties against the same team -- no matter what they do on the ice. Always find an excuse to call a penalty against the other team to break it up. Always call an "even-up penalty" after you've called a controversial penalty. Stop calling penalties in lobsided games to allow the clock to run out and get the game over. In many ways this is no different than the ring announcer in WWE raising a finger for the "go home" cue to end the match. ie: Fans don't like this match, so let's bring it to an end. 

 

How about 3-on-3 OT? Game management. We want the game over, without a shootout, and we want it done now. Thus, we will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. It's sort of like starting an inning with the bases loaded in baseball to get an extra inning game over with quickly. It's as though the NHL sees the desired outcome, and they will make it happen whether the players want it to or not. 

 

The desert and southern expansion. Again, very WWE-like in that the NHL is putting teams down in locations where they want them to be, regardless of what fans want. It's not unlike how the WWE will keep shoving a particular storyline down viewers throats until they finally buy into it. The NHL wants teams in the southwest, and they're going to keep ramming them in there until they gain acceptance. (One wonders how successful Quebec City would have been if the NHL had adopted that same strategy there.)

 

My thought bubble burst. I'm spent.  

 

[Samifan]

Happy Thanksgiving Mr. McMahon?

[WordsOfWisdom]

2 hours ago, Samifan said:

Happy Thanksgiving Mr. McMahon?

 

You're fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrred!

 

[BluPuk]

I'll give ya 5 to 1 they wanted the name Mighty Knights of Vegas.......