OT: NHL Expansion - Who's next?
Now, after last nights expansion draft, Vegas officially is the NHL's 31st franchise, I'm starting to think who will be the 32nd? And when?
I think anything over 32 is way too many, personally, I like it when I was a kid and there were 21 but here we are. Kansas City's ship has sailed. Hamilton's might have as well. Seattle looks to be the favorite, if they can get a building built. I think, if the Leafs agree, Toronto can easily become a 2 team city. Also, Quebec City is high on the list, though some reshuffling of the conferences needs to take place.
Who do you guys thinks gets it? Any franchises move from struggling areas to cities that deserve one but won't get it from expansion?
I think Quebec City gets a team in some way, shape, or form and I also think Seattle is angling pretty hard for a team as well, but which one? Do we have any truly struggling franchises left to move(as I agree that the expansion bullet ends at 32 and even that seems like the NHL is begging for trouble)?
Maybe Phoenix or maybe the Ducks want to get out of the Kings shadow, but after that I'm not sure who moves.
Quebec City will get the Golden Knights in 5 years when they move out of Vegas.
What a mess that is.
I bet Seattle gets a team, which would even out the conferences. However I could see a Carolina or Florida Panthers team relocate there.
Past attempts haven't worked because of the proximity to Vancover. Canucks don't want another team in their territory. Plus, Seattle has very little foundation for hockey from youth leagues on up.
Canucks ownership is actually very high on having a regional rival. The nearest team is > 600 miles away (Calgary). Having a team in Seattle, that is a 3-hr drive away (including the border crossing) will be good for both cities.
While Seattle doesn't have a great youth program yet, the local support for the local junior teams (WHL) is strong and passionate. The Seattle area supports two teams (Thunderbirds and Silvertips). The T-Birds actually won the WHL title this past season, after being the runner up the year before.
Don't forget that Seattle has a very large population of transplants who are often ripe with supplemental income (e.g. folks in the tech industry). These folks are the ones who'll drive initial interest in supporting an NHL team. The youth leagues will follow once there is an NHL team to bring exposure to the sport.
Actually Seattle area has a robust and growing youth hockey organization. Over 800 kids strong on the eastside alone.
And as an adult hockey player in Seattle, we have a ton of transplants that fill up adult leagues in just about every rink and numbers are increasing every season.
Like many of my friends and teammates here, I dream of an NHL team in Seattle and season tickets.
Despite being a die-hard Wings fan, I'd get season tickets for a Seattle NHL franchise the moment they go on sale. I'd be a Seattle fan for all games, except for when the Wings come to town.
When they get their share of the relocation fee. Same could be said for the Coyotes/Kings with Vegas coming in. They made it work and re-drew the markets.
As for lack of youth hockey in Seattle, that's not true. Not as strong of a base as other markets, but Seattle has their own CHL team in the WHL's Seattle Thunderbirds. One of four WHL teams in Washington, alone. The whole state of Washington would benefit from having an NHL Franchise.
But I think you're in the minority. Totally agree on avoiding public funding whenever possible. But people have been demanding the Sonics back since they left. I think of one league lands, the other will as well. And that will only help the case for a new/renovated building.
(Former Seatlte resident)
About ten people demanded the Sonics back. I worked with two of them, the third was the local sports radio voice, and there were about seven more who looked up from all of the non-sports things they do there to care. And five of them probably didn't know the Sonics existed when they were there. Besides soccer, Seattle is simply not a sports town. Nobody showed up at Seahawks games until they got good. Nobody shows up at Mariners games. And nobody showed up at Sonics games except when they were good. The only team that seems to get consistent fan support, regardless of performance, are the Sounders (MLS).
An NHL team in Seattle will be met with much enthusiasm for about a year; then, the novelty will wear off and nobody will care.
Maybe the city just needs some teams that actually win? Even then, fans here are pretty fucking good.
Until recently, the Seahawks were as bad as the Browns. The Mariners haven't won shit ever, and until recently, had pretty awful ownership and management that cared more about profits than the product on the field. Despite this, both teams managed to get beautiful new stadiums. The Sonics left because a) Key Arena is a fetid cesspool (I say this as someone who lives 5 blocks away, and has spent many hours in the bowels of the arena) and b) Howard Schultz knowingly sold the team to someone who planned to move it all along.
But I'd look to the Sounders as the best analog for how the city will respond to a hockey franchise. The team has been good (not great), having won their first league title this year. But the fanbase and supporter groups are passionate and consistently fill up the stadium. There's a reason why the US national team loves to play in Seattle - the fans make it a truly hostile environment.
Sure, they got a baseball stadium built -- the legislature funded it after it failed 51-49 in a King County vote. They also got a football stadium built, 51-49 statewide, after Paul Allen bankrolled millions of dollars of ads and paid for the election (special elections have lower turnouts).
Oh, and they hadn't finished paying for the Kingdome when they imploded it.
Seattle soccer fans are great. If you happen to be a soccer fan, that's fantastic. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that any other sport will succeed there. Soccer is its own animal with its own fans. (Hockey is much the same, to be fair, but the demographics of hockey fans and soccer fans are different, and Seattle's demographics match soccer much better than they do hockey).
It's not like Schultz turned down 5 other offers to sell the team to Oklahoma City. There may have been 1 competing bid, IIRC, and it was quite a bit lower.
I don't know what's going on with the Key Arena plan, but the revised SODO proposal led by Hansen is 100% privately financed. It's exactly what the city needs. The blockers at this point are the longshoremen's union and vacation of Occidental St. The latter is a political ploy that the city council has used to gain concessions from Hansen and his group (Hansen has countered with the removal of public funding from his proposal). There's little to no traffic on that street, no matter what the time of day (I've seen it first-hand).
That isn't true.
The Hansen proposal includes $200 million in municipal bonds. Yes, the group guarantees that they will pay back that bond, but if they go bankrupt, the public will be left holding the bag. And that is even before another $150 million in taxes and what not that will be funneled to the group.
The ROI on these "investments" are terrible. The people footing the bill have the money to do it without ANY public involvement (it is just cheaper and safer with public), and they should do so.
Seattle would get MUCH GREATER ROI if they just invest that money into incubators or even just public housing for homeless. Enough with welfare for billionaires.
I doubt the Ducks are going anywhere. Pretty well-established team with a good following that has had some recent success. If anyone's moving its the Coyotes. I'm amazed they've lasted this long.
The shadow of the Kings isn't as big as the shadow of being a hockey team in shadow of the glorious weather and recreational options of Southern California.
It's a tomb there. I worked in LA during the Ducks Cup run and I don't recall hearing about it on local sports radio once.
LA is a Lakers town first. They're also a Lakers town second.
Everyone else is fighting for a very distant third.
Lakers and Dodgers, basically true. They spent some attention on USC football when I was there, but that was 2005 when they had the Leinart/Bush superteam and the aftermath. The Lakers and the Dodgers have solid fan followings.
Of course, volume matters--the fan-per-capita total is rather low there, but the greater LA area is vast and there are massive quantities of people, so even a small percentage of people who are fans equates to a decent following.
The Ducks have 40,00 loyal fans who fiull their arena every game. After that nobody in SoCal cares.
might as well put all that frozen area to good use
Because putting an NHL franchise there may be the only thing that makes less sense than putting the World Cup there.
To be fair, dune bobsledding seems like it would be awesome until the speed and sand wear down the sled and it is jut you in a rather warm suit speeding down a sandy halfpipe at close to 90 MPH on your soon-to-be bare ass. In other news, the IOC might add that to the summer events.
I think the Vegas expansion is a mistake, but there's no question that it opens the way for a 32nd team.
The Leafs agreeing is an important factor, one that plays into Hamilton and any other bid for the GTA. Naturally, there's plenty of hockey fans available for a second team, though prying fans away from the beloved Leafs will be tricky and become exponentially harder if the Leafs actually start being good.
Why has KC's ship sailed? They might not be a big market but it seems like they could be a good place if they want to. I agree, though, that Seattle and Quebec City are solid options. Seattle has the market size, and the community is a proven supporter of junior hockey, so if there's any talk there (I have no idea what info you have, I have little) it is sensible. So, of course, is QC.
In non-NHL hockey news, this doesn't yet merit its own thread, but the NHL is holding a presser in Chicago regarding college hockey with officials from the University of Illinois present; College Hockey News has reported that Illinois is NOT imminently beginning a program. People are trying to figure out what it's about.
I feel that if Kansas City were to happen, it would have already. Lots of flirting with the Penguins and Islanders but nothing ever came of it. Plus, Sprint Arena is now 10 years old, which doesn't sound very old but when you have teams looking for a new building every 20 years, it's not new either.
Houston's dynamics have changed a lot recently, perhaps they get a look too?
But unlikely, IMO. But they have all the makings. Missouri is a hockey state. St. Louis had how many drafted players last year? A ton in the first round alone. And more this year. KC also has a newer building that can support hockey. Think the expansion fee would be too high for the market, but KC could work.
I think HL is persuasive. I expect KC to continue to be used as a movement ploy for other franchises looking to cut deals on financing with their local cities, but not to actually get a team.
Honestly, it seems like all major sports leagues like to benefit from having an open city to use as a bluff for home negotiations. Whether the newer trend of cities refusing to play along (hello, Oakland) continues to grow or not is open to question.
And now has 31 teams? Learn someting new everyday.
Bring back the Hartford Whalers.
But seriously if its not them, I'm betting Quebec City is next.
This is only opinion and not to be used by Gary Bettman for future planning:
1) Quebec
2) Hartford
3) Seattle
4) Hamilton
5) Hobart, Tasmania
but if that ever gets resolved --- I think they are #1 on Gary Bettman's list.
Seattle #2, Kansas City #3.
Expansion basically needs to be west, to make the conferences 16/16 (neither Detroit or Columbus is going to want to move back west).
Quebec City gets a team if/when one of Carolina, Florida or the NY Islanders basically have to move (Carolina being the most likely of those 3).
has a rather weird sweetheart deal with Harris County, Texas (who half-owns Totoya Center with Alexander). Namely: no NHL team can play in the Toyota Center unless Alexander owns it.
Unfortunate, because I think hockey would work there. The Aeros were one of the successful WHA teams, just got left out of the merger in the late 70s. The IHL/AHL Aeros did well for much of the 90s and 2000s too. Until ---- guess who ---- chased them out of town (to lovely Des Moines) by tripling their Toyota Center rent.
Some other arena could certainly be built, of course. Houston is big enough and there's enough $ down there. But for the moment, there are no other arena proposals - and that is Houston's only chance at getting an NHL team.
I think the favorite has to be a city that's within the Western footprint, just to even out the divisions. Though Hamilton/Quebec City/Halifax/etc. could get one, that'd require moving either Detroit or Columbus back to the West, and I don't really see that happening.
Personal preference, I'd love for Portland to get one so I'd have a nearby team to root for when they aren't playing Detroit. But I tend to agree with Seattle being the next most likely location.
The big Portland rumor is that Paul Allen - who owns the Moda Center - doesn't really care for hockey and has poo-pooed the idea of bringing in an NHL team. I'm not positive Portland could handle another professional sports team, but the Winterhawks do pretty well at bring in people, so maybe.
Makes perfect sense. A league whose finals have roughly the same national viewership as Modern Family reruns and dont get carried by a major outlet DEFINITELY needs more teams. Cause the interest level in hockey's at an all-time and people just cant get enough of it.
Nothing screams ice hockey like the Las Vegas player draft held in 120 degree temps.
Switch "team" for "car" and "Canadians" for "women" and this is perfect IMO
Admit it. You're still bitter over the Cleveland Barons very brief NHL stint in the 70's.
Enough for a while, at least 5-10 years. LV shoud draw really well though