An interesting and arguably desperate proposal to open a third casino in Connecticut to keep state gamblers from traveling to casinos in Massachusetts is worthy of discussion, but carries significant shortfalls that the state would have to weigh carefully.

The Mohegan tribe, operators of Mohegan Sun, began floating the idea this week, planting the story line with various news outlets. The post-election trial balloon floated above the Capitol without a strong political current to support it or a quiver of partisan arrows launched to bring it down.

If you don't know what to say, don't say anything, seemed to be the predominant political reasoning in Hartford.

"This is not something we have previously considered," said Andrew Doba, director of communications for the newly re-elected Gov. Dannel P. Malloy. That statement certainly keeps all options open.

The idea seems to have at least one eager legislative advocate in Rep. Peggy Sayers, D-Windsor Locks. Rep. Sayers is the deputy House speaker. Interestingly, her district would be strategically located to build a casino intended to choke off Connecticut residents who might otherwise keep traveling north on Interstate 91 to Springfield, Mass., where MGM plans to open a casino in 2017 or 2018.

Massachusetts has also approved construction of a casino just outside Boston and will license a third in the southeastern corner of that state.

The popularity of the Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Resort casinos peaked in 2007, as did the revenue they send to Connecticut, $430 million that year, representing 25 percent of the take from slot machines. Then the Great Recession hit. Combined with increased competition as other surrounding states welcomed casinos, it translated into a precipitous decline in business for the Connecticut gaming halls and large-scale layoffs.

Connecticut expects to get only $280 million in slot revenues this year and the Office of Fiscal Analysis forecasts that by 2018, with the Massachusetts gaming facilities opening, the number will be $191 million, which could prove optimistic.

To reduce the loss of business, Mohegan officials suggest construction of another Connecticut casino north of Hartford and south of the Massachusetts border, with the hope of at least keeping residents in north-central Connecticut from traveling to the MGM casino in Springfield. Hartford is roughly 50 miles from Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods, half that distance from Springfield.

This third casino would likely have to be jointly operated by the Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot tribes. Under their compact with the state, the Mohegans and Mashantuckets, who operate Foxwoods, have exclusive rights to run casinos in Connecticut. It would appear both would have to benefit to reopen the compact and allow a third gaming facility. The Mashantucket tribe has been silent about the idea.

It makes sense that such a casino would block the flight of casino-goers to Springfield and that should retain jobs in Connecticut, while mitigating the loss of slot revenues.

However, it would do little, if anything, to help the casinos around here, which still stand to lose customers and jobs. And while a third casino would reduce the loss of casino business to Massachusetts, those losses would still remain significant as citizens in that state opt to gamble close to home.

Weighed against mitigating business losses for the tribes and revenue reductions for the state, is the toll expanded gambling would inflict. More low-income people from Hartford would gravitate to a closer casino, gambling money they could ill afford to lose in pursuit of the big payoff. More citizens will become addicted, more will turn to embezzlement to try to dig themselves out from under gambling losses.

Rep. Stephen Dargan, a West Haven Democrat and co-chair of the Public Safety and Security Committee, told the Connecticut Mirror he wants to conduct an informational meeting on preserving the casino industry in the state. That could serve as the start of a necessary discussion to determine if this proposal is even worth pursuing any further.