That seems to insinuate that U.S. teams winning the Cup is "bad"...
I don't think it's accurate to say the trade caused the blossoming of hockey in the U.S.
Hockey thrived in the northern states long before Gretzky was moved. Not to mention, the LA Kings were founded in 1967. It's not like they were some new expansion team and Gretzky was "given" to them to anchor the sport there. I think it was the beginning of the great sport of hockey SPREADING OUT across the continent.
Was it good? Of course, it expanded the fanbase exponentially!
Would we see the different international games without this growth?
Was it bad? My opinion - would we have seen teams leaving Quebec, Hartford, Winnipeg, and Minnesota for cities where the fans need to go to the arena just to SEE ice without this new fervor? No disrespect, but places like Arizona and Nevada don't see ice unless it comes in their drinks..
I also think it helped turn the NHL into less of a league of teams and more of a business, worrying about profit, "buy-ins" and bottom line.
- Do we needTWO teams in Florida? (Both expansion teams from the '90s)THREE in California?(Two of which are also expansion teams from the '90s).
(I'm not dumping on these teams, I've been a Bolts fan since they started, I just plain love the Sharks, and I miss when the Ducks were MIGHTY)
I do think the NHL has been SERIOUSLY neglecting their roots, and they need to start filling out the league with Canadian teams again, but that doesn't mean that hockey doesn't "belong" elsewhere....
Sorry for the rant...
