Is this a good idea for the NHL?

Question

I think they should take a team that does not have a good attendance record. Such as the Thrashers, Panthers, Kings or even the Blackhawks and move them to Seattle. Think about it Seattle is close to Canada so that will attract more fans, and also the Seattle team could be rivals with Vancouver so that could cause fan attention. Let me know if you think it is a good idea and does anyone have any good team names for the team?

Answer 1

You would have to find a market that has the right demographic and interest.  Alaska...not going to happen.  Travel costs, time change, lack of corporate sponsorship, population...all nonstarters.  The numbers simply do not add up.

Seattle struggles to support WHL hockey, and just lost an NBA team to Oklahoma City despite a team with deep roots in the city.  

Chicago has turned the corner on attendance (plus the NHL will not leave the Chicago market; too big, too much corporate interest, Original Six market).  Florida, Nashville, and Atlanta are all sinkholes financially, but again...it's a case of finding a profitable market that will support a team for 41 regular season home games.  The elephant in the room is Southern Ontario; if an owner is willing to pay MLSE (the Maple Leafs ownership) for territorial indemnity, that market would work.  Corporate sponsorship, population, demographics, income all add up (the exchange rate being the biggest issue).

Answer 2

right now they are fine where they are just becuase it wuold s***w everything up if a team was moved.  Why would you wanna take away the few loayal fan's team away? if they took away the caps i'd be pretty pissed

Answer 3

yeah but it would need to stay in the same division, and the contracts for the lease of the building need to expire. i see where youre going, its not bad, and since seattle lost an nba franchise it could even the city out

Answer 4

Eh, let them stay as they are.  In the near future I would think Florida or Atlanta should be moved, but to move them out of the division is difficult and will require other major changes.  To move them in the division (SE) would be pointless because that is such a weak and not popular division.  Alaska is way too far and in the months of hockey would be too tricky to get to.  How many people would be able to fill a hockey stadium consistently in Alaska in January and February anyways?

Answer 5

Bettman will not move any teams in america because he still has a so called plan to expand the game... especially in the so called big market LA

Answer 6

Yeah it would be good to move the Panthers Not the Kings though.

Kings have been around since the expansion

and the blackhawks??? youve got to be crazy to move one of the original six no matter how much they suck

Basiclty the Coyotes need to go back to Winnipeg the Hurricanes should go back to hartford and yeah the panthers would work in seatle

Answer 7

  First off LA will always have a team.  Actually 2 if you count the Ducks as an LA market area team. The Kings drew over 16k per game last year which is very repectable considering they are going on 7 years of futility. Chicago and St. Louis were only drawing 13k a couple years ago in comarision. Also.. the Ducks / Kings combined attendence is better then the NYR / NYI so I guess being a warm weather market doesn't mean it's not a GOOD hockey market.

   I think Atlanta needs time.. a couple winning seasons can do wonders for the team and it's fanbase. Remember the Deadwing era?? Nobody would ever consider moving the Wings.  The one team that I think can be moved is the Panthers.  

   As far as Alaska.. well too much negative on this one.. travel.. weather and REALLY small market to start. You might as well put a team in Hawaii while you are at it. Love our 49th state but professional sports just don't have a place or economic value.  

Answer 8

Yeah that could work, but they might have to put teams in different divisions.

2eighty8- I care to argue about Buffalo's fan base when average like last years

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance...

It was #2 in NHL attendence last year when it had an average team.

Answer 9

Buffalo's also close to Canada, but it still has a mediocre attendance when they have an average team. This relocated team will do horribly in the beginning and the NHL cannot afford to have a team do worse than the Kings with the current economic state.

Answer 10

I understand your thought process, but first of all, CHI isn't going anywhere.  Chicago as a city is in the top three in TV markets in the US.    Chicago, NY, Boston, and LA are all teams that will always be around.  The Kings also won't leave LA, california is a big state, and LA is a major viewing market, yeah they might suck, but people watch.  

As for Atlanta, and Florida they could easily be moved, especially with how bad Florida looks like they will be this year.  I don't think it will happen, if anything they should just dissolve the teams that have low attendance. That way the NHL would get back to a manageable number of teams, and the league wouldn't be so diluted.  There are too many teams right now, cut a few out and the skill around the league will go up.  If you want proof that dissolving teams is the right way to go, just consider that Bettman wants to ADD teams to the league, thus making the opposite, dissolving teams, the correct decision.  When making hockey related decisions it is always best to get Bettman's input, to be sure you do the opposite.

Answer 11

I don't think Seattle would be a good city for an NHL team. Like a city like Winnipeg, Oklahoma City, or even Houston. Houston almost got my favorite team (the Edmonton Oilers) at the lockout. But I think that teams like Atlanta, Nashville, or one of the Florida teams should be moved. But since Bettman is such a fruit, he wont allow it. This is a long shot, but how about putting a team in Alaska or the Yukon?? haha