Responding to Daly, Edwards

As a life-long Thrashers fan (I've followed them since I was 10 years old), I've seen the ups and downs that the franchise has had in what is an admittedly short history. I've seen sellouts at Philips Arena and I've seen empty buildings, yet I've seen it all while living nestled away in New England. New England. Boston Bruins country.

As I try to keep this blog neutral and objective, I cannot help but lash out at some of the stuff I've read about the Thrashers over the past few days. I may be late to the ball, but I'd like to share my thoughts on it nonetheless.

Recently NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly went on Winnipeg sports radio to discuss the Thrashers future in Atlanta, while Jack Edwards, who will never be confused with Albert Einstein, went off on this rant which simultaneously praised the Thrashers and degraded the entire sports fanbase in the city of Atlanta.

Daly noted that "We're going to have to look at the long term prospects of that franchise, and if the determination is made that it can't make it there, and can't be successful there, then something will have to be done," and that "Atlanta has proven to be a very difficult market," the latter statement in some senses ringing true.

Edwards blog was a little more asinine, saying things like:

The Thrashers. State bird, you know? Sort of fits in nicely with that Falcons/Hawks ornithological nickname trend? They've been around for 10 seasons now, so you can't really even call them an "expansion team" anymore -- after all, the New York "Amazin'" Mets won the World Series in their eighth season (I think they beat the Braves in the NLCS -- sorry).

and:

they have this guy named Dustin Byfuglien (not "Bigh-FOOG-lee-in" but rather "BUFF-lin") who has a lot of the stuff that makes sports X factors interesting: He's big, fast, creative, eager to please and he already has won a Stanley Cup (that's like the Lombardi Trophy of hockey) with the Chicago Blackhawks.

and, of course, had to throw in the obligatory:

. Sonofagun, they would be drawing deafening capacity crowds in places like Quebec City or Winnipeg, where they are starved to get an NHL team again after the big Sun Belt experiment.

This is all fine and dandy. The fact of the matter is, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Edwards blasts the Atlanta sports fans for essentially not supporting their teams. This is excellent. Before we get to hockey, let's observe.

The last year the Boston Red Sox had a losing record was 1997. Their average attendance that year? 27,483, good for 9th in the then-14 team American League. The last year the Boston Celtics had a losing record was 2006-2007, when they put 16,843 fans in the seats per game. That was good for 20th in the 30-team NBA. Patriots attendance numbers were not readily available. The point? Boston doesn't support their teams when they lose either.

The Thrashers are winning now, yes. They have won 7 of 8 and are climbing the Eastern Conference standings. However, they've won as many NHL playoff games as the Red Sox have--zero. Over ten years, that tends to deflate a fan base. Unfortunately for the Thrashers, winning a handful of games in November is not going to magically start selling out Philips Arena. I agree in principle with what Edwards is saying: the fans in Atlanta should be supporting the team. This is absolutely true. But for those who have supported the team only to see star player after star player skip town and for years of little reward, why would any average fan want to spend thousands of dollars on season tickets?

That's a good question I suppose. Perhaps we should ask Bruins fans? Here's a comparison look at the Bruins attendance versus the Thrashers since the Thrashers inception:

Season	Thrashers	Bruins
1999-2000	17,206	16,322
2000-2001	15,262	15,432*
2001-2002	13,668	15,403*
2002-2003	13,476	15,029*
2003-2004	15,121	15,133*
2004-2005	N/A	N/A
2005-2006	15,550*	16,211
2006-2007	16,240*	14,746
2007-2008	15,831	15,384*
2008-2009	14,626	17,039*
2009-2010	13,607*	17,388*

*=Indicates winning season

Note that when the Thrashers had their two winning seasons from 2005-2007, attendance was at its highest. When the Bruins had their losing swoon during that same time, their attendance suffered the most. The point? There is a correlation between winning teams and attendance.

The Chicago Blackhawks are the toughest ticket in hockey right now, selling out the United Center on a nightly basis. During their last losing season in 2006-2007, the Blackhawks drew 12,727 fans per night to the United Center, lower than any paid attendance number in Thrashers history. Look at the 'Hawks now; they've rebuilt their team (with help from Rick Dudley) and turned them into a Stanley Cup champion. Their championship season? They lead the NHL with a 21,356 average which was 108.3% of the United Center capacity.

In 2003-2004 the Pittsburgh Penguins were the worst team in the NHL. Their attendance that year? A paltry 11,877, which sparked relocation rumors galore. Things turned around after that for the Penguins as they soon went on to win the 2009 Stanley Cup. They drew 16,975 that season and, come to think of it, I haven't heard any relocation talk since.

The point? Winning builds a fan base. The Thrashers have never iced a consistent winner and their attendance numbers reflect that rightfully so. NHL tickets are not exactly inexpensive. Would you want to spend hundreds of dollars to go bring your family to a game to see a product you knew was inferior? I know I wouldn't. Even being the hockey fan that I am I couldn't justify spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars to watch my team get smoked--I'd rather just watch it on TV. Sure, I love the live game, but the casual hockey fan thinks with their wallet.

Those casual fans are what fill the TD Bank Garden every night. Sure, the Bruins have a solid fan base. If the Thrashers had been founded in 1924 I'm sure their fan base would be more extensive as well. But aside from those lifelong fans, there are plenty of Boston sports fans up here that love the Bruins yet can't say Milan Lucic's name right. They're casual, fairweather fans and every city has them. What I see from Jack Edwards is, well (not surprisingly), ignorant. The Bruins have not always packed the Garden and there will be a day when they won't again. Same goes with the Thrashers.

I'm looking at you too, Bill Daly. The NHL has much greater problems in Phoenix. Remember that Washington, Dallas, Tampa Bay, Carolina, and the list goes on and on, are non-traditional hockey markets where the sport has flourished. Atlanta has the fan base, it's just waiting for the right time to show it's face.

It's like this in every single market, save the Canadian teams. It's like this with most sports. Winning brings people out. Losing does not. It's as simple as that. Jack, I live in New England. I know what Boston is all about. I'm a Boston sports fan myself for everything but hockey and even I can recognize our fans are fairweather. So please Jack, instead of contriving such wonderful lectures on Atlanta sports fans, you should work on your next United States history lecture. The last one was just so good.