Why the appeal of Florida and Vegas is a boom-bust cycle, not the new normal

There’s a remarkable phenomenon in the NHL that I’m forever baffled by: this idea that “what is now is what will always be.” 

It's an established NHL truth that "it's a copycat league" because teams watch the playoffs, they see who won, then brilliantly deduce “Hey, we should do that!" 

The problem is, there is more than one way to win a Stanley Cup (as the transition from the defending Cup-champion Florida Panthers to the Cup-winning Carolina Hurricanes just demonstrated), and one team doing it one way does not necessarily establish a mold for all to follow.

There just seems to be a collective lack of foresight, and we’re seeing it play out with the hysteria around “superteams,” or this idea that Florida and Vegas are going to suddenly, perpetually, be the number one destination for star players at or near free agency until the end of time. 

Those are cool places to play hockey, but we’re in a cycle. 

What these southern teams have in common -- aside from the much-hyped low taxes and sunshine -- is that they’re currently good. It’s shocking how often that’s being overlooked in these discussions. Being good today means they’re probably going to be that way for at least another year or so, which should keep fans around, and keep them as fun destinations to play in for a little while.

But things change. There are generations of players who’d tell you that playing in front of sparse buildings with passive interest in the south when you’re not good isn’t quite as awesome.

The teams most talked about in these conversations are Florida, Tampa Bay, Vegas, and maybe Dallas. It was funny hearing that Brady Tkachuk had Carolina on his yes-trade list, given that the Hurricanes have been on no-trade lists for years until they did the thing most important of all: they won. 

Suddenly it’s “Hey have you noticed Carolina is warm, and their fanbase is passionate, and they’ve got a comparatively low tax rate?"

But of the other four teams mentioned, Florida doesn't have any first-round picks in the next four drafts, Tampa Bay and Vegas don't have any in the next two years, and Dallas has just one in the next three years. That’s what happens when you’re a good team, and when superstars want to get traded to your team.

It's cool in the moment but, over time, it's going to get harder to maintain.

There seems to be concern out there about star players consolidating in these places. Players like Dylan Larkin, Connor Hellebuyck, Zach Werenski, maybe even Auston Matthews someday. But to land any of these huge names you’re looking at trade returns similar to the Tkachuk trade, and all of these teams mentioned are already asset-thin. A recent ranking of prospect pools in The Athletic had Dallas, Florida, Vegas and Tampa Bay all ranked 24^th or worse in the NHL by the strength of its prospect pool.

How long do you think these teams – who are already on the older side – are going to be great? Apparently these players think forever, and some fans seem to share that sentiment. As great as the management is in each one of these cities, it’s going to be tough to sustain success with few picks and prospects left. 

What if, in the years ahead, these teams turn from Cup contenders into just "OK" teams with little shot of winning? You don't think players will turn their attention to other teams on the come up? Do you think it’s a coincidence that some of these players have suddenly started adding “Minnesota” to their list of preferred destinations? 

The Wild were on Tkachuk’s list because they’ve got a roster close to contending for a Cup, and once you get your franchise there, people sell you on the rest – like the fact the city is a stirring hockey dynamo in wait. Winning in Minnesota would be a profound experience, as you’d be the focus of a fanbase that’s been hungry and deserving going back to the 1960s. 

What happens when the Chicago Blackhawks get going the other direction, and they’re selling out their 20,000-seat building in an iconic American city? You don’t think players will want to go there? 

This warm weather thing is a great perk, but just take a look at an NHL schedule. During the season these guys are at the rink for game days (morning skate, nap, game) and travelling for a huge amount of time. Nice weather is an undeniable perk for those in-between moments, but other cities have their own unique upsides too.

The NBA has warm and inexpensive cities, but boy, it sure looked cool to win with the New York Knicks didn’t it? So how about when the Rangers start winning again, or the Boston Bruins, or the Los Angeles Kings? Players will get in line to get dealt to those cities. There was a recent rumour about a star player adding Montreal to his list of places to go play. Montreal’s been an awesome city forever, but because they’re competitive now, it suddenly holds more appeal. Players have chosen Edmonton in recent years while the Oilers have been competitive, and the same goes for other Canadian cities when they’re contending.

With the salary cap going up, the “no tax” thing – which only applies to the home game portion of your team's schedule – can be compensated for in other locations without burying a team’s cap. That tax thing is another undeniable perk, but again: not the only perk that exists.

What we’re seeing is also a unique product of our times, with political tensions between Canada and the United States stirring up something in our brotherly rivalry. This all started to boil over right as the US and Canada played in a best-on-best for the first time in a dozen years at the 4 Nations Face-Off, and that led to fireworks. Then there was the dramatic gold medal game at the 2026 Winter Olympics (replete with some off-ice subplots that bothered some on both sides of the border), and with it all, we felt a widening of the divide between our American and Canadian players.

I'll admit that this aspect may have a more persistent effect in the years ahead, but joining a winning roster will always be the most important piece given the short length of NHL careers. Zoomed out to the whole, players will want to play in the league, they’ll want to play where it matters, they’ll want to play where people care, and most of all, where they can win. 

Times will change and that's what makes this current cycle feel unique to this particular generation of stars.

The idea that some destinations are more preferable to others isn't new. But like always, those teams have the same amount of draft assets and cap space to build their teams with, and they'll utilize whatever advantage they can, including the apparent allure of palm trees.

So far, this current collection of destination teams have done a pretty good job managing things, often with maximum term deals to keep AAVs down, and retaining as many of their preferred players as possible. But, as those players age out and their contracts remain on the books, the degree of difficulty will ramp up. Those teams will inevitably decline (Florida did miss the playoffs this past season) and other teams on the upswing in cities with a different brand of appealing aspects will start winning, and they’ll become the new destination of choice for the next wave of players.

Things change. This phase will too.

Because the NHL is a copycat league, we're currently staring down the barrel of a trend that seems like it will be a new forever normal. To which I say: give it a second. The league moves in cycles. The way it is now, is not how it will always be.