I feel like I should have a take on the whole Penguins business, but I'm having a tough time getting past the absolute absurdity of the thing as a whole to get into details.

"We want the Penguins to stay here in Pittsburgh. This is a great market; there are great hockey fans. We’d like nothing better than for the Penguins to have a new arena on the right economic terms so we don’t have to worry about the long-term viability of this franchise." - Gary Bettman

I'm not interested in picking on Bettman's role in this shmozzle, but what can someone who respects the meaning of words make of this statement?

If Hooters said that Pittsburgh was a "great market" for beer and chicken wings, but that the only way they could open a restaurant there was if someone else paid for it to be built, what would you think? To be polite about it, you'd think that you and Hooters had different definitions of what constitutes a great market. (Also, only in B-S-Land does "on the right economic terms" = "paid for with someone else's money".)

Much, much more ridiculous than this element of the story, though, was the whole Isle of Capri thing. We're all still clear that, strictly speaking, the Penguins and slot machines have nothing to do with each other, right?

Let's see: three groups make applications to a political body for (A) the "right" to build a casino, and (B) for said casino to be a local monopoly enforced by men with guns from another political body (I'm not trying to be obtuse here -- if the Penguins or someone else decided, "Sod it, we're building a casino without your permission", it would end with police occupying the construction site).

As part of their applications, the groups make numerous promises that are not at all connected to operating a casino, but that are expressly intended to gain political favour (we'll build X, we'll donate to Y, etc. etc.). Other politicians express their opinions on the various merits of the proposals.

And when the decision is finally made, the unsuccessful bidders express dismay that the decision may have been political. Aieeee!!! I just shake my head thinking about the millions and millions of dollars spent to win a license that is now gone with the wind. All of the following seem less insane to me that what the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania actually did:

• Letting anyone who wants to build a casino without an onerous licensing process or regulation (and if their neighbours don't like it re: traffic and parking, they can sue or otherwise work it out)
• Letting anyone who wants to get a casino license, so long as they can satisfy whoever beforehand that they'll accommodate their own traffic and parking (and/or remit X% of their profits in tax, or to charity)
• Granting as many licenses as there were suitable bids (apparently in this case, three)
• Auctioning off the single Pittsburgh license

Instead, we got this terribly wasteful and expensive process guaranteed to satisfy a few and disappoint many.

I think Andy's right: the Pens' best shot is Mark Cuban, or someone like him. He's an entrepreneur (by which I mean I guy who owns his challenges, not a deal-making highwayman). There are presently NHL franchises that have less in the way of natural advantages (i.e. hockey culture and history) that are successful on the whole. If there is a way for the Penguins to be viable in Pittsburgh without the need for a nine-figure sum of Other People's Money, then he'd be the guy to find it and make it happen.

If the Pens' survival continues to be dependent on their success in elbowing around the lip of the cannibal pot, then I doubt it'll end well, and I sure as hell don't care to pay attention to the jostling.