I don't know, a lot of this is too complex for my hunter-gatherer brain capacity, but I love the quality and cordiality of the comments on this thread.

(not to mention a Travis Yost sighting)
- John Jaeckel

Not to mention should read 'in spite of..'

I think one point that's been lost in the contraction discussion is how tough the opposition would be from the NHLPA. Losing four teams and the subsequent employment opportunities? The union would throw an absolute shitfit.

That's one of the main reasons they've been so adamant about revenue sharing. From a player union perspective, they know more business is good business, and they're willing to sacrifice HRR percentages in order to keep job opportunity at the same fixed number, as opposed to slicing, say, 13% employment in exchange for twenty-six financially solvent businesses.
- Travis Yost

Do you think the Union would be willing to consider contraction if a plausible argument could be made that contraction, although causing shorter-term negatives for the League (as described in other posts), could put the League in a better position to grow and put the remaining franchises on more stable financial footing?

If the union is against contraction because of the loss of jobs maybe the owners should agree to add a player to the each roster so instead of 40 jobs being lost only 12 jobs would be lost. The payrolls would be higher but at least the owners wouldn't have to deal with two struggling teams.

Do you think the Union would be willing to consider contraction if a plausible argument could be made that contraction, although causing shorter-term negatives for the League (as described in other posts), could put the League in a better position to grow and put the remaining franchises on more stable financial footing?
- Chinaski

Although contraction is not a terrible idea its not going to happen. This is a labor dispute.... and the NHL is a business. More teams means more exposure and more revenue for the league. Bettman's job is not to find a way to minimize the revenue sharing between teams... but rather to have the players subsidize the difference. That's why I don't think the pressure is on bettman to get the league going again..... the longer the owners hold out the more likely they get what they want. I'd rather be the guy keeping 30 unpaid owners united than the guy keeping 750 unpaid players united. Jmo.

Not sure, but if the issue comes up around the CBA talks, you can bet the PA's position on it will impact negotiations.

The PA had to ratify (and didn't) realignment.
- John Jaeckel

I really liked that realignment proposal... a lot

Isn't this a part of the NHL's proposal in regards to limits to how contracts are to get put together? Limit to contract length, value of contract fairly similar across the whole contract, etc...
- OilHorse

The NHL thinks this is the solution. It's not - it's a "we can't control ourselves, so players please save us from doing more stupid things" offer. The more flexibility you strip out of how contracts can be structured, the harder the salary cap system gets. Why should the players agree to those terms?

There are kids that will get influenced no matter when the marketing is done...better late than never?
- OilHorse

Some kids will get influenced toward hockey no matter what [just like some markets in Canada will support hockey no matter what]. The kids who could play hockey but don't really hear much about it and are instead attracted to football, basketball, baseball and soccer? Those are the kids you can't get back - and that means it takes longer to lay the groundwork for hockey in some areas.

Do you think the Union would be willing to consider contraction if a plausible argument could be made that contraction, although causing shorter-term negatives for the League (as described in other posts), could put the League in a better position to grow and put the remaining franchises on more stable financial footing?
- Chinaski

What do the players get from having the remaining franchises be on more stable footing? If the answer is something like "they get to keep those jobs and not worry about losing others, and ....... um, well, that's about it" then there's no real incentive for the players to let numerous jobs get turfed.

If the union is against contraction because of the loss of jobs maybe the owners should agree to add a player to the each roster so instead of 40 jobs being lost only 12 jobs would be lost. The payrolls would be higher but at least the owners wouldn't have to deal with two struggling teams.
- jhawk159

However, all the remaining struggling teams are going to go a little further in the hole. If you're trying to avoid more revenue sharing, do you have any suggestions on how to fix that? Besides, it's possible that this causes the players in aggregate to be more overpaid than they would have been ex-contraction, so while they "only" lose X jobs, they potentially lose more salary in aggregate [though this can't be quantified without real specifics].

I really liked that realignment proposal... a lot
- moylander

It will happen - good for the players, too.

If there's actually another season some year.

Just a show of force.

Although contraction is not a terrible idea its not going to happen. This is a labor dispute.... and the NHL is a business. More teams means more exposure and more revenue for the league. Bettman's job is not to find a way to minimize the revenue sharing between teams... but rather to have the players subsidize the difference. That's why I don't think the pressure is on bettman to get the league going again..... the longer the owners hold out the more likely they get what they want. I'd rather be the guy keeping 30 unpaid owners united than the guy keeping 750 unpaid players united. Jmo.
- moylander

I'm not saying you're wrong; much of what you state here is very true. However, I'm wondering if these sides are capable of putting all options on the table and thinking outside the box.

If there were contraction, is it possible some of the following things could be positive results :
1. Better depth/skill on the remaining teams and hopefully better all around quality of hockey played.
2. Opportunity to have a shorter regular season.
3. With a shorter regular season, get playoffs started in mid-February and Cup awarded by mid to end of April - get the best hockey on national TV when the casual hockey fans and those sports fans (especially NFL) who don't follow hockey have few, if any, other options for sports on TV in an attempt to begin to widen the fanbase.
4. Shorter all around season could allow the players to be more healthy during the year - gives them a little more time in the off-season (even the teams that play late into the playoffs) to recover properly and get in decent training time.

The largest untapped revenue growth is in the TV contract. I think they thought they could gain popularity around the US by getting into large TV markets and it would take off from there. It didn't happen.

I think they need a different approach to growing the game from the standpoint of attracting more fans. In my opinion, the best weapon they have is the playoffs. If they could move forward with re-alignment and we start to see some heated division rivalries start in the first round of the playoffs, it may be the one thing that gets the casual and non-hockey fans to start watching hockey a little earlier the next season. The more they watch, hopefully, the more they like and the more they follow.

With the current model, they just seem to be chiseling away at the wallets and the patience of the die-hards. If they keep this trend up, they will begin to lose those fans whose loyalty won't be easily replaced for the long-term.

What do the players get from having the remaining franchises be on more stable footing? If the answer is something like "they get to keep those jobs and not worry about losing others, and ....... um, well, that's about it" then there's no real incentive for the players to let numerous jobs get turfed.

- Irish Blues

I addressed this in my post above, but in summary, I'm just wondering if contraction couldn't be part of a long-term plan to try to grow the game's fanbase significantly such that they could begin to draw a lot more revenue from the TV deals.

What do the players get from having the remaining franchises be on more stable footing? If the answer is something like "they get to keep those jobs and not worry about losing others, and ....... um, well, that's about it" then there's no real incentive for the players to let numerous jobs get turfed.


However, all the remaining struggling teams are going to go a little further in the hole. If you're trying to avoid more revenue sharing, do you have any suggestions on how to fix that? Besides, it's possible that this causes the players in aggregate to be more overpaid than they would have been ex-contraction, so while they "only" lose X jobs, they potentially lose more salary in aggregate
- Irish Blues[though this can't be quantified without real specifics].

The only league that really "gets it" is the most successful one: NFL.

The NHL is not a confederation of 30 individual businesses competing financially with each other: it is one organization of "partners", competing collectively with other sources of entertainment - NBA, movies, concerts, theater, TV, etc.

It's in the league's interest - each individual partner's interest - to have strong franchises in each market so they can, thru strength, collectively grow the market for major league hockey.

They should pool their broadcast revenues and more-or-less evenly distribute them, like the NFL (although hockey has a higher percentage of local broadcast revenues - doesn't really matter).

They should stop looking at revenue sharing as a zero-sum game and realize that by working as 30 partners in a growing enterprise, they can grow better than by doing it individually.

They already have the anti-trust exemption that allows it.

I addressed this in my post above, but in summary, I'm just wondering if contraction couldn't be part of a long-term plan to try to grow the game's fanbase significantly such that they could begin to draw a lot more revenue from the TV deals.
- Chinaski

The NBC TV deal goes for another 9 years; the TSN/CBC deal is up after this season. That one is likely to be 6-7 years, so really we're talking about the players losing in the short-term and hoping that 6-7+ years from now, then there's going to be an even bigger TV deal and a bigger fan base. In the meantime, the players are holding an IOU that may turn out to be worthless.

Knowing how the owners have treated them in the last 2 negotiations, do you really think they're going to take that offer?

The NBC TV deal goes for another 9 years; the TSN/CBC deal is up after this season. That one is likely to be 6-7 years, so really we're talking about the players losing in the short-term and hoping that 6-7+ years from now, then there's going to be an even bigger TV deal and a bigger fan base. In the meantime, the players are holding an IOU that may turn out to be worthless.

Knowing how the owners have treated them in the last 2 negotiations, do you really think they're going to take that offer?
- Irish Blues

In addition - how many players playing today will still be playing when the Canadian TV contracts are re-done?

It's in the league's interest - each individual partner's interest - to have strong franchises in each market so they can, thru strength, collectively grow the market for major league hockey.
- StLBravesFan

This is largely accurate - but it's also not realistic. The NFL has relatively solid franchises due to a pair of massive TV contracts. The NHL has nothing close to that [and probably won't in the lifetime of anyone here]. It's more dependent on the strength of each specific market; in that respect, there are simply some markets who will always have advantages others will never enjoy. There should not be a "guarantee of profits" for every team - but there should be the opportunity for every team to make a profit. Pooling revenues would reflect an attempt to guarantee profits; revenue sharing reflects the opportunity for profits.

That said, even if your statement was realistic, it's not the same as the interest of the players. If things go well and revenues grow, the players get a percentage of it - but if huge profits are generated in the process, they get none of those profits. In that respect, the players simply have an incentive to maximize revenues irrespective of the strength of every franchise; if revenues can be increased by making one franchise stronger at the expense of another - even if that means make the strong stronger at the expense of the already weak - the players don't have an incentive to protect the weak other than the oft-stated "... but if you don't, that's X jobs that will be lost."

They should pool their broadcast revenues and more-or-less evenly distribute them, like the NFL (although hockey has a higher percentage of local broadcast revenues - doesn't really matter).

They should stop looking at revenue sharing as a zero-sum game and realize that by working as 30 partners in a growing enterprise, they can grow better than by doing it individually.

They already have the anti-trust exemption that allows it.
- StLBravesFan

See above on pooling.

The NBC TV deal goes for another 9 years; the TSN/CBC deal is up after this season. That one is likely to be 6-7 years, so really we're talking about the players losing in the short-term and hoping that 6-7+ years from now, then there's going to be an even bigger TV deal and a bigger fan base. In the meantime, the players are holding an IOU that may turn out to be worthless.

Knowing how the owners have treated them in the last 2 negotiations, do you really think they're going to take that offer?
- Irish Blues

I don't think they'd go for contraction alone. I'm wondering if there is any scenario where they would consider it if they thought it would be good for the game, future players, the fans, etc. There may not be.

I don't think they'd go for contraction alone. I'm wondering if there is any scenario where they would consider it if they thought it would be good for the game, future players, the fans, etc. There may not be.
- Chinaski

Short answer: no. The players will not go for any scenario where teams are contracted on the promise that one day out in the future, they may gain due to increased revenues unless they're given a guarantee that they won't be worse off in the short-term ... and that's a scenario the owners won't agree to.

I'll throw out the other point I continually make about any contraction scenario, though: this requires the affected owners to agree to hand over their teams. Those owners are not going to voluntarily take a big zero on their investment - they're going to have to be bought out. Even if Phoenix is one of the teams booted [the owners would simply agree to write off the money they've contributed thus far], you're talking about $150 million per team at a minimum. Who's going to be writing those checks - and do you really think they're going to want to do that?

This is largely accurate - but it's also not realistic. The NFL has relatively solid franchises due to a pair of massive TV contracts. The NHL has nothing close to that
- Irish Blues[and probably won't in the lifetime of anyone here]. It's more dependent on the strength of each specific market; in that respect, there are simply some markets who will always have advantages others will never enjoy. There should not be a "guarantee of profits" for every team - but there should be the opportunity for every team to make a profit. Pooling revenues would reflect an attempt to guarantee profits; revenue sharing reflects the opportunity for profits.

That said, even if your statement was realistic, it's not the same as the interest of the players. If things go well and revenues grow, the players get a percentage of it - but if huge profits are generated in the process, they get none of those profits. In that respect, the players simply have an incentive to maximize revenues irrespective of the strength of every franchise; if revenues can be increased by making one franchise stronger at the expense of another - even if that means make the strong stronger at the expense of the already weak - the players don't have an incentive to protect the weak other than the oft-stated "... but if you don't, that's X jobs that will be lost."


See above on pooling.

If the national TV contracts bring in $400MM (I think that's right), the 30 local broadcast rights ma bring in another $400MM (I really have no idea) - why not spread that? Maybe do more of what Comcast does sporadically - bring out of market Comcast games into local markets - maybe there is some synergy in that.

Why not guarantee profits? The local offices of this international corporation are not at all competing with each other, financially or geographically. Acting together, they can quite possibly grow revenues more aggressively than acting locally.

Since they've already agreed to a cap, the players wouldn't care whether he revenues are collectively enhanced, or increased market by market.

If the national TV contracts bring in $400MM (I think that's right), the 30 local broadcast rights ma bring in another $400MM (I really have no idea) - why not spread that? Maybe do more of what Comcast does sporadically - bring out of market Comcast games into local markets - maybe there is some synergy in that.
- StLBravesFan

Most of the local broadcast revenue is coming from the high-revenue teams; a notable exception is the Islanders. Who's going to be more supportive of the idea of sharing that money - the teams who already have it, or the teams who don't? You're looking at this as though each team does [and should] care about one another; it only exists in the same world as fairies and unicorns and leprechauns.

Why not guarantee profits? The local offices of this international corporation are not at all competing with each other, financially or geographically. Acting together, they can quite possibly grow revenues more aggressively than acting locally.
- StLBravesFan

If you guarantee profits, you leave no incentive for teams who operate inefficiently or have terrible management or ownership to improve. If you run your team great and another team is run like it's Bill Wirtz or Howard Ballard or Norm Green in charge, you end up subsidizing their incompetence; they can simply continue to be indifferent in controlling spending or growing revenues, and still be guaranteed a profit courtesy of someone else's work. Depending on how the numbers fall, it might cost some teams more than the current status quo.

Since they've already agreed to a cap, the players wouldn't care whether he revenues are collectively enhanced, or increased market by market.
- StLBravesFan

This is correct - but no matter how much [or little] revenue is generated, the players don't get any more whether all teams operate profitably or not. Thus, the players only care about maximizing revenues since that's the only way they make the most money. How money is distributed is only important given other constraints that exist - but if it's a choice between "spread revenue" and "maximize revenue" the players will always reach for the bigger pie.

The NHL thinks this is the solution. It's not - it's a "we can't control ourselves, so players please save us from doing more stupid things" offer. The more flexibility you strip out of how contracts can be structured, the harder the salary cap system gets. Why should the players agree to those terms?.
- Irish Blues

It is the league saying that they need to put limits on how contracts are made...it is their league, they make they rules. Of course the players don't want these restrictions, just shows they they are not interested in making things more balanced. It is not up to the players to make the cap work, but the team, now it add a wrinkle but keeps the teams more in line.

Players wanna play? Sign up the dotted line.

Some kids will get influenced toward hockey no matter what
- Irish Blues[just like some markets in Canada will support hockey no matter what]. The kids who could play hockey but don't really hear much about it and are instead attracted to football, basketball, baseball and soccer? Those are the kids you can't get back - and that means it takes longer to lay the groundwork for hockey in some areas.

And there are still kids that can be influenced...it is not like the league will not garner a fan base because they didn't do something back before 06. young kids back in 06 are still in their influential period now. It is not all lost, they can be drawn into the fold...and their are kids still coming up that can be drawn into the fold.

Like I said, better late than never.

Short answer: no. The players will not go for any scenario where teams are contracted on the promise that one day out in the future, they may gain due to increased revenues unless they're given a guarantee that they won't be worse off in the short-term ... and that's a scenario the owners won't agree to.

I'll throw out the other point I continually make about any contraction scenario, though: this requires the affected owners to agree to hand over their teams. Those owners are not going to voluntarily take a big zero on their investment - they're going to have to be bought out. Even if Phoenix is one of the teams booted
- Irish Blues[the owners would simply agree to write off the money they've contributed thus far], you're talking about $150 million per team at a minimum. Who's going to be writing those checks - and do you really think they're going to want to do that?

Obviously the players do not want to lose jobs...but they have no say. Zero.

Where do you get the idea that the league will need to pay off owners in a contraction scenario (other than Phx, which as a league run team will be the easiest to contract)? I bet there is more than one owner that would be willing to think on just walking away, cutting losses. Columbus lost 17 mill last year...think that owner is ok with that year in and year out? I doubt it. Even with the idea that these guys buy sport franchises as toys it is not easy to piss away almost 20 mil...and these guys are still businessmen...in it for the money.

I'll throw out the other point I continually make about any contraction scenario, though: this requires the affected owners to agree to hand over their teams. Those owners are not going to voluntarily take a big zero on their investment - they're going to have to be bought out. Even if Phoenix is one of the teams booted [the owners would simply agree to write off the money they've contributed thus far], you're talking about $150 million per team at a minimum. Who's going to be writing those checks - and do you really think they're going to want to do that?

>Unless you have an actual copy of the NHL by-laws that sit in Rocky Wirtz's office, I think you typed a little too much, a little too long
>The NHL OWNS the Coyotes and NO CHECKS would have have to written by anybody to anybody to fold the Coyotes RIGHT NOW
>Expansion teams or any team can be liquidated as stated in the NHL by-laws which cover a variety of reasons that the NHL can pull-the-plug on a franchise or an owner (See Bettman/NHL countersuit vs Dolan family/NY Rangers regarding team websites trying to be run by the team, instead of the NHL -- Dolan folded.)
>The NHL has chosen, so far, to assume ownership of franchises (Phoenix and maybe more to come) that can't hack it like the Coyotes
>The NHL has also demonstrated over the years, that the league prefers to recruit new owners when the current ones can't get it done -- remember when Bill Laurie and his wife, with all that Walmart family money, rescued your own St. Louis Blues and then themselves unloaded the Blues to Dave Checketts -- citing $60 million in losses over the last two years of their ownership?
>The Blues, again with new ownership, are on their 8th owner in 45 years or a new owner just about every five and a half years -- great business this NHL ownership
>NHL league by-laws, which can be changed by the owners own set of rules of how to do so, hold the keys to the: if, how, and when contraction happens
>And you can be sure a contracted franchise owned by an actual owner would get much closer to what they paid the league for their entry as a franchise -- not some assessed market value

Many good points on the contraction discussion. So what are people's thoughts on the 30 teams that are currently in the league and their viability in their current markets? If the financials for certain teams don't seem viable, what is the solution? Is it relocation, contraction, or is it simply pay the players less, much less?

>Unless you have an actual copy of the NHL by-laws that sit in Rocky Wirtz's office, I think you typed a little too much, a little too long
>The NHL OWNS the Coyotes and NO CHECKS would have have to written by anybody to anybody to fold the Coyotes RIGHT NOW
- SnapitUpstairs

I stated that above. If the Coyotes fold, everyone is out the money contributed to date [less whatever gets recouped from selling off assets]. The other 29 teams, ... not so much.

>Expansion teams or any team can be liquidated as stated in the NHL by-laws which cover a variety of reasons that the NHL can pull-the-plug on a franchise or an owner (See Bettman/NHL countersuit vs Dolan family/NY Rangers regarding team websites trying to be run by the team, instead of the NHL -- Dolan folded.)
- SnapitUpstairs

The League has the right to revoke a franchise only if specific events take place [specific violations of the Constitution or League By-Laws, or a violation of either that an owner refuses to remedy]. Even so, Section 3.12 of the Constitution specifies that if the team is dissolved by order of the League, the owner of that team receives monies left over after all assets are sold and all expenses are paid. The MSG/NHL fight never got anywhere close to "do it or we'll revoke your franchise" level, so any attempt to make that jump is a misrepresentation of what was really "at stake."

However, 3.12 applies to any involuntary termination. Nothing in the NHL Constitution gives the NHL the power to revoke a franchise "because we feel like it." If the league goes asking franchises "could you please drop out?" no one is going to do so and take a voluntary zero and walk away; they're going to want to be reimbursed for the value of the assets in the team and the intrinsic value of the franchise. Perhaps assets cover some of the cost - but no team [not even the Leafs or Canadiens] has assets worth more than the value of the franchise.

>The NHL has chosen, so far, to assume ownership of franchises (Phoenix and maybe more to come) that can't hack it like the Coyotes
- SnapitUpstairs

The NHL bought the Coyotes because the alternative was to let Jim Balsillie into the league via a back-door bankruptcy that put his interests ahead of the NHL's [who had been providing financing to Moyes prior to the filing] and establish precedent that any prospective owner who couldn't/wouldn't be approved by the Board of Governors could get in via having a team dragged into bankruptcy and superseding the NHL's interests in the team. Do not expect this to be repeated for every other club that gets into financial trouble.

>The NHL has also demonstrated over the years, that the league prefers to recruit new owners when the current ones can't get it done -- remember when Bill Laurie and his wife, with all that Walmart family money, rescued your own St. Louis Blues and then themselves unloaded the Blues to Dave Checketts -- citing $60 million in losses over the last two years of their ownership?
- SnapitUpstairs

Laurie didn't get recruited by the NHL; he went shopping for the Blues as part of his dream to bring an NBA team to St. Louis. The Blues didn't "get rescued by Laurie" either - they were owned by Civic Progress at the time, and could have gone on for years like that. CP's biggest "problem" was deciding to pay the bonds on Kiel Center over 10 years instead of the traditional 30, which required cash calls from the companies that made up CP in order to make the payments. I'm quite familiar with how that went down, your attempt to portray the Blues as being in dire straits before Laurie is just laughable.

P.S. - the Lauries bought the team in 1999 and sold in 2005. That's six (6) years of ownership, not two.

>The Blues, again with new ownership, are on their 8th owner in 45 years or a new owner just about every five and a half years -- great business this NHL ownership
- SnapitUpstairs

True? It's all Bettman's fault? I'm not really sure where you're going with this comment. But hey, we could have had stable ownership like the Gund brothers in Minnesota for 13 years.

>NHL league by-laws, which can be changed by the owners own set of rules of how to do so, hold the keys to the: if, how, and when contraction happens
- SnapitUpstairs

True? That said, if you're trying to go from here to "... and they can zero out any franchise and that owner can't do a damn thing about it" ...

>And you can be sure a contracted franchise owned by an actual owner would get much closer to what they paid the league for their entry as a franchise -- not some assessed market value
- SnapitUpstairs

... you have a terrible understanding of how business works.
Really? The time value of money wouldn't enter into this? Improvements [or the lack thereof] made by the owners wouldn't be recognized? Let's go way out on the fringe and say the Red Wings are targeted for contraction; you really think Mike Ilitch is going to agree to take closer to the $8 million he paid for the team back in 1982? For teams bought recently, "purchase price" is likely close to "current value" - but the more time that passes, the more the difference between the two grows. To believe that this wouldn't be recognized is like looking at the floor as a percentage of the cap and expressing disbelief that the percentage has gone up over time; if you really don't understand why that is, you fail to understand basic math.

>The NHL OWNS the Coyotes and NO CHECKS would have have to written by anybody to anybody to fold the Coyotes RIGHT NOW

- SnapitUpstairs

Other than the lease in the arena...which I think still has 2 or 3 years left, but that is a minor detail.

Irish keeps bringing up how contraction does not do anything because if you contract the bottom 2 then that will just push the cap around making other teams fall into the "have-not" section.

Between CBJ and Phx, they are each losing about an avg of ~ 20 mil/season. The next 2 teams after that are each losing an avg of ~ 10mil/season. That is a big difference when it starts to come to chqs from the have team to the have not teams. And then the CBA needs to be re-written, salary cap included.

The teams need to be saved from themselves...there is no debate on this. If the players refuse to acknowledge this then they will have union members losing jobs because teams will be unable to stay viable.

Obviously the players do not want to lose jobs...but they have no say. Zero.
- OilHorse

Go back and look at the context my comment was made in [would the players agree to contraction in exchange for ______]. Yes, I agree with you though - if an owner wants to fold his team tomorrow there's nothing the NHLPA can do about it.

Where do you get the idea that the league will need to pay off owners in a contraction scenario (other than Phx, which as a league run team will be the easiest to contract)? I bet there is more than one owner that would be willing to think on just walking away, cutting losses. Columbus lost 17 mill last year...think that owner is ok with that year in and year out? I doubt it. Even with the idea that these guys buy sport franchises as toys it is not easy to piss away almost 20 mil...and these guys are still businessmen...in it for the money.
- OilHorse

This is Business 101. Even if Columbus is losing $17 million a year, the franchise still has value. The physical assets that belong to the team [player contracts, merchandise, equipment, office furniture, etc.] is the easiest to recognize, but each franchise also has some intrinsic value. The Blue Jackets existence in Columbus, its association with the other 29 teams, the potential for growth in the fan base and future profits, current and future business relationships with local companies, ... all of those things have some amount of value that cannot be directly measured. The fact that any team is losing $X does not mean the team is worthless.

Absent egregious violations of the NHL Constitution or the League By-Laws, the NHL doesn't have the power to kick a team out at its whim; as such, no owner is going to voluntarily take a zero on his investment in a contraction scenario. [Commentary about how that ability could damage the values of all franchises omitted for the time being.] In a liquidation, the value of some assets is written down to zero and the value of other assets is written down markedly; in the scenario everyone is describing, the owner is giving up the ability to sell the team [along with all of the intrinsic value embedded in the franchise] for future gain or to limit current losses. No one is going to just hand that over for free because someone asks "pretty please."