Agree or disagree: is Seattle the last American city for the NHL to logically expand?

Question

I know the Sonics just left due to a lack of a new arena (most unfortunate, other problems were there as well), but if they got it together and built a new arena, I think that an NHL team would go great in Seattle. I know the NHL is already 6 teams too big (though I'm a Blue Jackets fan), but realistically, Seattle is a huge market. I bet they'd get the Sonics back (via expansion) also. The closest team is the Canucks (4 or 5 hours away) and to the south, San Jose. It's fairly isolated. There are several arguments here, but another team in the U.S. should go to Seattle. I hope the league doesn't expand any more, but if a team were to move, Seattle would be great (with a new arena and such). Other than that, the league SHOULD NOT expand in the U.S. but maybe add one more in Canada of the Canadian dollar remains strong.

Answer 1

Expand - no.

But teams could move from southern US cities to Portland, Milwaukee, Kansas City, or Hartford.

The only reason why there could be further expansion is because of attendance rising and the salary cap - so, down the line it might be a possibility.

Answer 2

Seattle is one of them for sure!! Don't forget about Milwaukee although whatever NHL team would go there would have to pay territorial rights to the Chicago Blackhawks. If that makes sense? Would a good fit there since you also have the Minnesota Wild as well!!

Maybe Salt Lake City? The Utah Jazz have done well there and so have the Utah Grizzles.

Like 288 said best to move the teams instead of expanding but I don't see any moving happening in the future!! Bettmann is looking to expand the league by 2 and Vegas and KC are in the running.

Answer 3

If Seattle had anything resembling an arena they would have an NBA team.  If they build a new arena with 18k seats I think it would be a more logical choice than places like Kansas City, OK City, Vegas, Hartford, Winnipeg, and Quebec City that get thrown around so often.

Move a team don't expand.  There are more than a few current poor markets that should lose their teams.  Nashville Phoenix, NJ or the Islanders, and Florida would have to top that list.

Answer 4

i was just in seatle and it was great and sports minded everywhere

i actually heard ppl who were fans of hockey there and wanted a team

Answer 5

To have a team move there is a better idea, but not to expand. There are already too many teams as it is.

Answer 6

nah i would guess that kansas city would get a team that would move there (cuz they almost landed the pens)

if not that i can see the nhl taking a chance on vegas for monetary reasons

seattle would likely be third imo

seattle deserves a team over areas such as nashville, phoenix, florida, and tampa (what a joke those markets are)

Answer 7

i think that the league should not expand at all, just move some teams around. Florida Panthers, Phoenix Coyotes and Atlanta Thrashers should move to 3 of the following: Seattle, Quebec City, Cincinnati or Cleveland, Green Bay or Milluake, and Winnipeg. The fans would care more about the teams there.

Answer 8

The Seattle city leaders aren't amenable to being held over a barrel to pay for a sports palace. I don't blame them but I don't llike to see teams relocate.

On the other hand, I always found it odd that Seattle wasn't represented in the NHL.

So, I think that a team should be there but doubt that it will happen due to the reasons surrounding the SuperSonics move to Oklahoma City.

Since that's the case, I think Milwaukee should be the next city. But the NHL, in it's infinite wisdom, will expand into hockey hotbeds such as Las Vegas and Houston or Kansas City before another team sprouts up where snow falls at some point of the year.

Answer 9

Seattle?  Sure, right after Winnipeg, Hamilton, Halifax, Quebec City, Hartford, and White Settlement, Texas.

Answer 10

Seattle should get an NHL team. The proximity to Vancouver could start a great new rivalry.

Answer 11

Seattle isn't a sport town (they don't support any of their 2 teams ) plus it is a scum city

Answer 12

Geographically I'm not too sure how that side if the Country is laid  out but if I'm thinking correctly between 3 California teams,Vancouver, Phoenix and Colorado there is A LOT going on in that area out west. The last thing you would want to do is make it stale like the Eastern Metro (NYC) area. Between The Rangers,Isle,Devil's,Flyer's, Capital's, Penguins Bruins and Sabers that area is kind of overwhelmed. Not to mention the Leafs and Habs just over the border.

  I'm not in your shoes as my state (New Jersey) has a team whether it should or not, but out of that pile I think NJ, NYI and Boston have low attendance at most games...I would just hate for you to be the Islanders of the West, on the verge of sale each time the going gets tough.

Answer 13

People continue to say the NHL does not need to expand but the NHL does need to expand or they need to cut the number of teams that make the playoffs.  Currently 16teams make the playoffs and there are 30 teams in the league.  Over HALF the league makes the playoffs! At least expand the league by 2 teams.  If not i feel the league should cut down the number of teams that make the playoffs.  Seattle with a new arena would be awesome for an NHL team.  With no teams close in that area of the U.S it would be nice to get one there.  Expand the league with a Candian team as well.  And then possibly relocate two other sunbelt/bad market (preds/panthers) to two different cities back in the north.  Still NHL needs to add at least 2 more teams.

Answer 14

I don't see Seattle or Portland getting any new sports team let alone hockey.

They both have WHL teams which do okay but are not selling out in record numbers.

People in the Northwest are more interested in things outdoors not solely sports. Also Seattle and Portland have a large liberal majorities and see sports as rivals to their tax dollars.

Kansas City seems to be the flavor of the month, The NHL made it pretty clear that they don't want a 7th Canadian team.

Kansas City might either get the Predators, Blues or maybe the Panthers, but I think instead of relocating team the NHL needs to get back to a lean 26 team league. Also I would like Las Vegas over KC

If the NHL moved to Vegas they would get a jump over the NBA and possible MLB, I'm sure the NFL has said no way. Las Vegas just has a lot more potential then KC but like most the NHL moves they either don't make sense or miss the big picture

Answer 15

eh, it probably would work, but they probably ruined their chances by failing to keep the sonics, but i personally would love to see somebody like Nashville or Florida move to seattle, im sure that seattle could do better than either of those two, but i doubt it is the point im trying to get across here

Answer 16

they cant handle a basketball team. theyre baseball team is firing and cutting everyone cause they suck so bad. Seahawks are a middle level team. what are they going to do with a hockey team?. it would be a good spot for Hockey, being in the North and near Canada and all, but Seattle aint much of a sports town

Answer 17

Yes Seattle should have an nhl team.  It is a perfect place for hockey.  If the NHL decides to put a team there I would go to some games.

Answer 18

I think Seattle might be able to support an American Hockey League, or East Coast Hockey League team but not the NHL. It's a good market but as far as I know the Seattle Thunderbirds, a junior team, are making that much noise. I think the realistic idea would be to relocate a team to Canada. Citizens of Canada respect the game much more than people in the United  States, and I think another hockey team in Canada would be just what the doctor ordered.

Answer 19

s***w Seattle

Hockey is a Canadian game and there is way more American teams. Gary Bettman is a f*g because he wants no more Canadian teams. Gretzky was Canadian so Bettman can go **** himslef.

Bring back the Winnepeg Jets and Quebec Nordiques!!!!!

Get rid of dam Columbus and Florida

(is there even ice in Florida)