It's the $500-million answer. The question?

Why won't the NHL do what a lot of people seem to want and contract three or four franchises?

Detroit Red Wings defenceman Chris Chelios, never short of opinions during a lockout, suggested NHL commissioner Gary Bettman was to blame for much of the league's financial problems because of expansion.

Chelios said the league has problems because it put teams in markets where hockey isn't marketable.

It's a widely held belief that if this lockout drags on for a season or more, some NHL franchises won't make it through to the other side and the game will be better for it.

Bettman has been adamant that contraction is not an option for the league.

The recent article in Forbes magazine -- which calculated the NHL's losses at half of what the league claimed -- also revealed some interesting trends in franchise values and tells you why contraction is not on the NHL's radar screen.

While the league's most recent expansions have been panned by some, it's interesting to note that franchises that went for $80 million (all terms US) seven years ago are now worth an average of $130 million, according to Forbes.

WORTH 62% MORE

That means they've appreciated in value an average of 62%.

For a business that is supposed to be so bad, that's a pretty good return on an investment, don't you think?

For those who think four or five franchises are just going to dry up and blow away, think again.

The Atlanta Thrashers, Columbus Blue Jackets, Minnesota Wild and Nashville Predators are now worth an average of $130 million apiece (a combined $520 million, according to Forbes).

The owners of those franchises aren't just going to kiss their investments good-bye and walk away.

You think the rest of the owners are going to get together and come up with half-a-billion dollars to shrink the league?

Not likely.

chris.stevenson@ott.sunpub.com