NHL  > General NHL  > NHL Expansion (Kansas City & Seattle)
January 2, 2009, 09:44 PM
There are two American cities with nice arenas and sports starved fans that could really use a boost. I really think Kansas City and Seattle would be excellent sites for expansion teams. What do you guys think? The league is beginning to gain its popularity back. Is it time for expansion? Are these the best cities for expansion? Should the NHL try to expand in America or focus on Canada only? Let's hear from you.
January 3, 2009  01:08 AM ET

........................I don't think there will be any expansion, but you may get a team that is relocating, like the Coyotes. With the state of the economy I don't think things are going to be too rosy for the NHL. If the MLB is already feeling the crunch you can bet the NHL is going to get squeezed too...................................

January 3, 2009  01:46 PM ET

I would love to see KC get a team just for the fact I am a STL man and think another interstate sports rivalery would be great.

January 3, 2009  09:19 PM ET

No expansion. There won't be any expansion in the NHL for a while. But I do agree about relocation. There are a lot of teams that need to get out of the cities that they are in. Phoenix, Tampa, Florida, and Atlanta all come to mind. So maybe move two of those teams.

January 5, 2009  01:00 AM ET

Expansion won't happen. If anything happens it will be contraction, but thats doubtful too because Bettman apparently likes seeing empty arenas in Atlanta, Phoenix and so on.

As for a team in KC, didn't they have one already only to see it move? A Canadian city would make much more sense.

As for a team in Seattle, didn't they just lose a Basketball team? Apparently not a good place to bring a franchise at this time.

January 5, 2009  02:06 AM ET

.......Kansas City lost the Blades when the IHL crashed and burned. I agree on the NHL contracting. I think hockey is going to be one of the sports hardest hit by a bad economy. The tickets are pricey, and frankly the fan base is nowhere near as large as the other major sports. I foresee some dark times for the NHL.......

January 5, 2009  07:39 PM ET

My list of places for a team to relocate:

1) Milwaukee
2) Winnipeg
3) Seattle
4) Halifax

All four of these cities could support and love an NHL team. And they should get them through relocation, not expansion.

January 6, 2009  06:39 PM ET

Milwaukee would have to share an arena with the Bucks. Winnipeg is a tiny market, Seattle could do it... Where on earth is Halifax? Do you really think the league would be on pins and needles to watch the Detroit and Halifax match up? Come on! That tiny town doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Milwaukee, Seattle or Kansas City.

January 6, 2009  06:43 PM ET
QUOTE(#4):

As for a team in KC, didn't they have one already only to see it move?

You're talking about the Kansas City Scouts, which came to the city for the 1975-1976 season. This city has grown drastically and already has the structure (Sprint Center opened October 2007) and the support (suites are sold out for any incoming hockey team since June 2006) for a successful NHL franchise.

January 7, 2009  11:41 AM ET
QUOTE(#1):

........................I don't think there will be any expansion, but you may get a team that is relocating, like the Coyotes. With the state of the economy I don't think things are going to be too rosy for the NHL. If the MLB is already feeling the crunch you can bet the NHL is going to get squeezed too...................................

gotta agree with passnthru here. the NFL has put most of their overseas plans on hold temporarily, and both that league and MLB have already had to make layoffs due to the struggling economy. If the two richest and most popular of the major U.S. sports are facing such turmoil, then hockey is bound to get hit as hard if not harder.

January 7, 2009  06:18 PM ET
QUOTE(#9):

gotta agree with passnthru here. the NFL has put most of their overseas plans on hold temporarily, and both that league and MLB have already had to make layoffs due to the struggling economy. If the two richest and most popular of the major U.S. sports are facing such turmoil, then hockey is bound to get hit as hard if not harder.

...and frankly some of the expansion they have done baffles me. Nashville had a ECHL team they didn't support, and next thing you know the Predators arrive. I'm still not sure what dynamic makes a city suddenly embrace something they didn't not to many years before.....

January 8, 2009  08:48 AM ET

Let's get things straight here... Kansas City would not support an NHL team... nowhere near the amount of fans necessary, nor would it have the corporate financial backing. Winnipeg on the other hand, is not a "tiny" market. It draws off of a surrounding population of 1 million people who can commute to the games in reasonable time. Plus, Canadian teams do not have trouble getting corporate sponsors, as Canadian banks, nowhere near as hard hit as their American counterparts love sponsoring the NHL up here (also some teams in the US, ie. Boston). Seattle, is a viable market, due mainly to it's large population and availability of sponsorship. I also think it's about time the Vancouver Canucks formed a healthy rivalry with someone... Halifax, can keep dreaming of a pro-sports franchise of any kind. The city is only about 400,000 strong in the whole surrounding area. The maritimes have a LONG history of financial crisis. It suffers from high unemployment, low pay, and lack of big corporations in the area. the only sponsor they might find is Scotiabank, but they are already with Ottawa. Who knows? NHL will not contract, it will not suffer as badly as MLB or NBA, as most NHL teams draw off of hardcore fans for attendance anyways. As for teams to relocate, Phoenix and Florida are the most likely candidates. Tampa still draws enough, and the ownership is young, Atlanta is a mjor market, and should turn around, as long as they get some talent in the line-up, other than Kovalchuk.

January 10, 2009  10:18 PM ET
QUOTE(#7):

Milwaukee would have to share an arena with the Bucks. Winnipeg is a tiny market, Seattle could do it... Where on earth is Halifax? Do you really think the league would be on pins and needles to watch the Detroit and Halifax match up? Come on! That tiny town doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Milwaukee, Seattle or Kansas City.

Are you for real!!!! Halifax is not a town, it is one of the largest CITIES in the Atlantic Provinces in CANADA, Yes CANADA, you know that country that borders the US to the North. I swear, before you start talking about something you know nothing about you better take a geography class. As far as how a NHL team would survive in a (town) like Halifax you really do not know Canadian Hockey....do you!

January 11, 2009  03:22 PM ET
QUOTE(#12):

Are you for real!!!! Halifax is not a town, it is one of the largest CITIES in the Atlantic Provinces in CANADA, Yes CANADA, you know that country that borders the US to the North. I swear, before you start talking about something you know nothing about you better take a geography class. As far as how a NHL team would survive in a (town) like Halifax you really do not know Canadian Hockey....do you!

MoReeselovestheSENS agrees that Halifax and their 400,000 people would not support a professional franchise. I don't pretend to know Canadian Hockey, but I have a fairly decent idea about economics and business. What I know most is that Kansas City has the structure and the coorporate sponsors (including Garmin, Sprint, Hallmark & Cerner) among other KC based businesses to support hockey. You forget that all cooporate suites have been sold out, pending the acquisition of a hockey team. You also forget that Kansas City has one of the most loyal NFL fan bases that sit through below 0 degree weather for teams that go 2-14. Kansas City will support an NHL franchise once a team arives. If you show our football crowd a kid like Crosby or Malkin, Ovechkin or Sedin, you will see this KC crowd go crazy and become addicted. SLHCDA - this is not about Canada v. USA. This is about the fact that KC has done everything asked of it to receive a hockey team. I'm a hockey fan living in Kansas City and to be honest, we might see one hockey game a week on the versus network at most. Our market hasn't been exposed to it the way most Canadians have. Canadians live for hockey... I know that. That being said, I can tell you without any hint of hesitation that KC has enough passionate sports fans to support a hockey team at a high level. If expanson is not an option during this financial crisis, relocation should be considered by teams that are struggling to draw attendence.

January 11, 2009  05:50 PM ET

Hamilton gets a team.
Thats really it.

Contract most southern teams
except Tampa Bay

January 11, 2009  06:03 PM ET

The NHL is to watered down as is, there are too many teams. There are too many warm weather teams, a lot of these cities do not belong having franchises. The Atlanta Thrashes among others are a comple joke. Two more franchises would do harm to the league. They should get rid of 2 if anything!

January 12, 2009  01:46 PM ET

I would have to say there are viable cities for the financially struggling teams to move to;

Seattle
Hamilton
Winnipeg
Quebec City
Kansas City - might be an option that I underestimated

Teams that can move ;

Phoenix - Winnipeg
Carolina - Quebec City
Florida - Hamilton
Nashville - Kansas City
Atlanta - Seattle

January 12, 2009  01:46 PM ET

I would have to say there are viable cities for the financially struggling teams to move to;

Seattle
Hamilton
Winnipeg
Quebec City
Kansas City - might be an option that I underestimated

Teams that can move ;

Phoenix - Winnipeg
Carolina - Quebec City
Florida - Hamilton
Nashville - Kansas City
Atlanta - Seattle

January 12, 2009  10:36 PM ET
QUOTE(#17):

I would have to say there are viable cities for the financially struggling teams to move to;SeattleHamiltonWinnipegQuebec CityKansas City - might be an option that I underestimatedTeams that can move ;Phoenix - WinnipegCarolina - Quebec CityFlorida - HamiltonNashville - Kansas CityAtlanta - Seattle

Do you think Carolina would really move after winning the cup just a couple of years ago? Doesn't really seem right. I mean, they've had success there.

January 13, 2009  08:29 AM ET

Carolina may have won the cup a couple of years ago, but they are playing in front of 9,000 fans??? The Ottawa 67's of the OHL routinely play in front of 10,000 fans here at the Civic Centre. The lowly Ottawa Senators routinely play infront of 19,000 + at Scotiabank plank, and they suck this year! Ottawa hasn't even won a cup, and Carolina has always been at the worst, decent. If you win a cup, and can't fill your stands, you have a problem. It's called NO SUPPORT.

 
January 14, 2009  10:25 AM ET

Bring them to KC. We'd love to have that team.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


The Si.com Cover Hub Go to the Cover Hub

Stub Hub

The 2009 schedule has been released. Search for tickets!

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Merriman: Runyan is dirtiest player I've faced
    Views
    29622
    Comments
    227
  2. 2
    Damon's Yankee days likely over
    Views
    39291
    Comments
    161
  3. 3
    Berrian: Bears' defense no longer intimidating
    Views
    9989
    Comments
    61
  4. 4
    Oilers' Hemsky injured by hit from behind
    Views
    975
    Comments
    18
  5. 5
    Blue Jays in no rush to deal Halladay
    Views
    4430
    Comments
    14

Most Active Users

Comments + Blog Posts + Throwdowns

  1. 1
    Chico 2.0
  2. 2
    BBK - Now it's all football
  3. 3
    rstowe
  4. 4
    gigi_iv
  5. 5
    Never NDing Struggle

Message Boards

  1. NCAAF > General NCAAF

    No More 'Canes and Gators
    Views
    496
    Replies
    70
  2. NBA > General NBA

    WHAT TEAMS SHOULD PICK UP…
    Views
    292
    Replies
    1
  3. NBA > General NBA

    IVERSON IS SET TO RETIRE...
    Views
    166
    Replies
    2

Blogs

SI.com

Swimsuit

SI Photos