Contraction is the death knell for any sports league. It is to the NHL’s extreme credit that, despite all of the ownership issues and team movement since the dawn of the expansion era in 1967, only one franchise has actually disappeared.

The league, as a whole, makes money. Therefore, there are no fiscal problems facing the league that cannot be addressed through a combination of cost control (read: salary cap) and revenue sharing. The losses sustained in Phoenix indicate a hole in the latter. Perhaps the NHL’s owners did not want to create a situation where poorly-run franchises can still break even; perhaps the hole is intentional. Nonetheless, it exists.

Even if it were possible to make a logical argument in favor of contraction, the criterion of “last year’s attendance” is stupid beyond words. Two years ago (2006-07 attendance data), the bottom six would have been:
1) St. Louis; 12,520 average
2) Chicago, 12,727 average
3) Islanders, 12,886 average
4) Washington, 13,929 average
5) New Jersey, 14,176 average
6) Boston, 14,764 average

Using the article’s criterion, the league should have contracted six teams in “traditional hockey markets” (including two pre-expansion era teams!) two years ago. Fortunately for the league, pro-contraction blog posts are worth the paper they’re printed on; five of these teams made the playoffs in 2008-09, which goes a long way toward explaining why five of the six teams are no longer at the bottom of the attendance roll.

This article stinks from a fiscal perspective too. How, exactly, are teams going to pay for better players (the ones being dispersed) with fewer revenue-producing games on the schedule? Remember, the salary cap is tied to total league revenues; eliminating six teams will reduce that revenue, lower the cap, and make it even harder to sign players. The only way this ridiculous idea could work is if the NHLPA voluntarily agreed to a universal contract reduction while simultaneously giving thumbs-up to the decision to eliminate 20% of its workforce.

No, I think the author’s true bias, his real rationale for radical contraction, player dispersal, and realignment, can be found in one sentence:

The NHL could do without this Eastern Conference team so that the Detroit Red Wings could then become an Eastern Conference team.

Unfortunately for the author, his knowledge of geography is as limited as his understanding of the league’s long-term goals; the easternmost Western Conference team (and therefore first in line to jump to the EC) is Columbus, not Detroit.