Columbus is more of a hockey town than Nashville.
re: Colorado.
The only reason why the Avs got the success so quickly is by acquiring Patrick Roy. If the Nordiques was still around at the time it happened, we'll just say the Forum would be burnt down that day the deal happened. To say the team is a bunch of bandwagoners I disagree to some degree, with the talent they had in the first year, you know they were going far, just the Stanley Cup, was...well, not predictable.
re: Phoenix.
There could have been a better place for Phoenix to go (Portland, Seattle), but the team hasn't improved or degrade over time. They've been around the development area for a while. While the fan capacity is around the same, at least the fans kept the traditional white-out from Winnipeg.
re: Hartford.
I never quite understand the whole move to Carolina, where NASCAR and College basketball is the dominate sport/event. Again, I think it was poor choice to have a team there, who probably have no idea what hockey was in the first place.
Expansion Teams:
I am not knocking on the California teams. With Kings games getting good attendance, and San Jose had a 99% attendance rating, and Anaheim going on that Cinderella story, as many hockey programs are starting in California, I'd rather have a team there than anywhere else.
Atlanta fans, aren't showing up for games, Nashville is nothing special than the teams like Winnipeg, Quebec and Hartford, but they can still have a team? There should be only one Florida team, to get a sell out crowd. All those empty seats I see, and playoff tickets going for 20 bucks, you can't tell me that you are hurting for fans. Columbus, Minnesota, and Ottawa are the only teams I have to agree with the expansion, as well as the California teams. They are the only places, who can generate a good solid fan base, with out the much needed bandwagoners. These cities have people who support the game, instead of brushing it away.