The recent news of the NHL's Nashville Predators being sold to Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie and possibly relocating to Southern Ontario has generated considerable news of late on the possibility of the NHL moving to new markets.

The talk, however, isn't about relocating franchises, but rather expanding the current number of NHL teams from 30 to 32.

The talk centers around three locations: Kansas City, Las Vegas, and Winnipeg.

Kansas City is the obvious choice, given that city has a shiny new arena but no NHL or NBA franchise to put into it. Winnipeg, a former NHL town, has itself a new venue suitable for a franchise.

Las Vegas lacks an arena but also lacks a big league franchise of any kind, and in a city that fancies itself as one giant adult amusement park would undoubtedly love to have one, even an NHL franchise. It also has mega-rich blockbuster film producer Jerry Bruckheimer - a big hockey fan - interested in helping to bring the NHL to Sin City.

I can understand the desire to tap into those markets. It remains to be seen what kind of hockey town Kansas City might become but those who built that arena are obviously willing to find out.

And who'll operate the building? The Anschutz Entertainment Group, who invested in the arena's construction. And their significance? They also own the Los Angeles Kings, and can obviously influence the league's decision to put a franchise in KC.

Apparently there's no conflict of interest involved in this, although for the life of me I can't understand how the owner of one team would be allowed to have any stake in a rival club. Perhaps one of you readers out there can enlighten me because I've yet to find anything on the internet regarding this.

Winnipeg, according to NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, is an "intriguing idea", and to most hockey fans, makes the most sense. It's got an NHL-capacity arena and before the Jets became the Phoenix Coyotes had one of the most devoted fanbases in the league, one that'll likely roar back to life if the Jets were resurrected.

Unfortunately, there's no owner(s) of yet willing to step up to spend the big bucks to bring back the Jets. And no, the city and the province won't do it. It has to be private ownership. There's been some suggestion of Balsillie moving the Predators there, but Balsillie's interest lies in Southern Ontario, not in Manitoba.

As for Vegas, yes I know, another Sun Belt franchise that won't have a chance, right? Not so fast. Las Vegas is all about entertainment, and while the NBA and NFL are the big attention getters the NHL would probably be a good sell there, particularly to visiting Canadian tourists or expats. Folks laughed when Bugsy Siegel dreamed of turning a dusty Nevada town into a gambling mecca, and as Vegas loves to tout, dreams can come true there.

So yes, I get the idea why those three cities would be of interest to the NHL.

But not through expansion.

Relocation makes far more sense. There are franchises that are struggling to make a go of it in this league. The Panthers claimed they were doing just fine before Leipold announced his intention to sell, citing among other things a lack of corporate sponsership and the inability of the Preds to reach 14,000 in season ticket sales.

The Preds averaged 89.2 percent attendance capacity this season, yet they're likely on the move in the next couple of years.

That doesn't bode well for teams like the Phoenix Coyotes (85.6) or Atlanta Thrashers (87.5). The former is a franchise in disarray on the ice and in the front office, whilst the moves made at this year's trade deadline by the latter had more than a whiff of desperation about them, such was their urgency to make the playoffs.

Ah, it's so easy to pick on the new kids on the block, the younger franchises, but what about supposedly more established ones like the Islanders, Capitals and Blues, all of which had attendance averages well below the league norm.

What about the Bruins and Blackhawks, two original six franchises that have been run into the ground by their respective owners to the point where they barely register in the minds of Boston and Chicago sports fans.

 Both clubs have faced declining attendance for years, so don't give me the argument about riots in those two cities if those teams moved. The protests would be feeble at best.

The league has enough potential relocation candidates to choose from, so why bloat the league further and spread the talent pool even thinner by adding two more teams?

Expansion fees.

It was the prime incentive behind the seemingly mindless expansion of the 1990s, where cities with people willing to pay the big bucks could step right up and buy themselves an NHL franchise, even in what is called "non-traditional hockey markets".

Ten years ago, the going rate for an NHL franchise was $80 million. Today, it's estimated at $150 million.

Those monies are spread amongst the existing franchises, and since they don't count as revenue, go directly into the pockets of the owners.

In other words, it has nothing to do with "growing the NHL product", with improving the NHL.

It's a cash grab, plain and simple. Good ol' fashioned greed.

And if those franchise can actually work out in their new cities, great. If not, well, they'll just cross that bridge when they come to it. Always put off until tomorrow the disaster you could've prevented today. That's the NHL's motto.

And yes, I'm against expansion even if it meant a franchise in Winnipeg, or Quebec City, or Saskatoon, or Halifax. I don't want to see the already watered-down NHL becoming even more diluted.

Earlier this year I wrote a blog posted entitled, "Just Say NO to Expansion", where I laid out my hopes that the NHL would avoid this ruinous, embarrassing path. I'll finish this article with the words I used to finish that one:

"The NHL doesn't need any more teams. What it needs to do is nurture those clubs that are struggling to establish themselves in the current non-traditional hockey markets, or failing that, relocate them to markets that will."