NHL in Seattle?

by Omerta on Jan 22, 2008 3:31 AM PST Comment 45 comments

No I don't have an insider scoop to such a rumor but I did attend a Thunderbirds/Chiefs game recently and enjoyed myself thoroughly. The attendance was impressive, the noise was impressive...I wonder if there is a chance that the NHL might consider expanding into our fair city and if they would consider Key Arena a place that could support a NHL franchise?

Would you be interested/support an NHL franchise here? After seeing that game, which went into overtime and took the fourth shot of a Spokane player in sudden death to secure a 5-4 victory...I know I would.

Poll

NHL in Seattle?

Yay!

52 votes

Nay...

8 votes

60 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 45 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Chiefs are solid this year.

I've always wondered the same thing.

Barring the NHL's financial issues, and a U.S. population that seems to "not get" hockey.

by Shawk on Jan 22, 2008 5:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Key Arena and the NHL

I always thought that the NHL would never put a franchise in Key Arena due to the design used for hockey (all those unsellable seats).

One thing I would like to know if anyone remembers: what was the City thinking when it accepted Ackerley's design to build a new arena that included an entire end with a big blind spot for hockey -- if only they hadn't been married to the idea of recreating the original roofline (and at the same height) of the Coliseum.

by dalemeken on Jan 22, 2008 5:50 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

It was done that way intentionally

because Ackerley had heard that the NHL was pondering a move to Seattle and he didn't want competition for his winter entertainment dollar. He wasn't interested in buying an NHL team, so he designed Key Arena so that it couldn't hold an NHL-sized rink.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 22, 2008 7:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, and as to what they were thinking

Ackerley was really the only game in town, Sonics-wise, so he had the city over a barrel; he wasn't about to sell the team if he didn't get what he wanted, he probably would have moved them. Which is funny, considering where they are today.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 22, 2008 8:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be more worried

about finding a way to keep my basketball team

--Dave

Addicted to Quack SBN's Oregon Ducks Blog

by Addicted to Quack on Jan 22, 2008 6:30 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

speaking of that,

the current thinking goes that if a new arena is built for the Sonics, it will be built this time to hold and court an NHL team as well.

by Matthew on Jan 22, 2008 8:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Too close?

Do you think the area could support another NHL team? It's not that far from Vancouver.

"You guys should be in every major city. This is some heavy shit. This is, like, Lone Ranger heavy, man."

by AZSEAfan on Jan 22, 2008 8:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Buffalo and Toronto coexist

It's a similar situation. And Ottawa isn't far from Toronto IIRC.

by Gomez on Jan 22, 2008 8:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, it's a 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 drive

sometimes more with the wait at the border crossing. If I wanted to catch a game after work, I just might make the last 8 minutes of the third period. And perhaps more importantly, the Canucks do not have a cable deal in the Seattle market.

That said, I am not sure the Seattle market would support an NHL team. The T-Birds draw well in large part because tickets are cheap -- NHL, not so much. And the NHL's record in places where kids do not grow up playing hockey is not great.

by G_ on Jan 22, 2008 9:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I was under the impression

that there was a decent youth hockey population in the Seattle corridor.

by Matthew on Jan 22, 2008 9:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Youth hockey = youth soccer

Most kids play hockey when they're kids and then stop when they get to junior high - there's no HS or college hockey in Seattle, so there's no real incentive to play competitively past age 12 or so.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 22, 2008 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Most young hockey players don't

advance through school teams. It's not like baseball or football.

It's more of a club-based model than a school-based model.

And that's the problem. Much like soccer flourishes in Europe because EVERYONE plays it and there's tons of infrastructure and youth leagues around to accomodate it, the same it true of hockey in Canada. That's a pretty steep barrier to entry for other regions.

I grew up in a small city called Lloydminster (about 200 miles east of Edmonton). There were 15,000 people in Lloydminster, and it supported 2 minor hockey teams (the Barons and the Lancers) who consistently drew over 1,000 fans per game.

by Llewdor on Jan 22, 2008 9:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree with that

Cheap minor league hockey isn't NHL hockey. Demand isn't guaranteed just because the T-Birds are a hot ticket in a small venue.

Also, AZ has a point below that Buffalo and Toronto are nautral hockey markets. This is not to say Seattle is a prime market for a moving team, just that Vancouver being close by isn't a dealbreaker, any more than San Diego being close to LA is a dealbreaker for both cities having pro teams of any sport.

by Gomez on Jan 22, 2008 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But

could you really compare the hockey market in Buffalo to Seattle?

"You guys should be in every major city. This is some heavy shit. This is, like, Lone Ranger heavy, man."

by AZSEAfan on Jan 22, 2008 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No

They're not even close.

by ningwers on Jan 22, 2008 9:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So how about those Sonics?

What is it now, 11 losses in a row?

As for NHL in Seattle, dunno... are there any NHL teams not happy with their current homes? It can't be in the enar future, because Seattle would probably have to build a new arena, and Kansas City may have them beat to the punch on any teams looking to move right now, because they have a new arena and very clear interest in acquiring a team.

by Gomez on Jan 22, 2008 8:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

KC is definitely the frontrunner in the US

Don't be surprised to see another team back in Canada in the next few years either. Given that the 6 Canadian teams generate 40% of the NHL's revenue, it's a nobrainer.

As far as teams that may leave their current home, Nashville's still in financial trouble, although a team of local investors is supposedly stepping up to keep the team in Nashville (not sure why they'd want to... the support for the team has been abysmal the last few years). If I had to guess, I'd say that Phoenix, Washington, Atlanta, and/or Florida may end up moving in a few years. Just for fun I'll throw the NY Islanders out there as a wild card. I didn't realize just how sad that franchise was until I looked at their attendance numbers over the last eight years... Ouch :(

by ningwers on Jan 22, 2008 9:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Any NHL team

that's based in a city that cannot naturally grow ice should move to one that can. Why on earth do Dallas, Phoenix, Tampa, and Atlanta have hockey?

BRING BACK THE WHALERS, GODDAMMIT!

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 22, 2008 9:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Brass Bonanza FTW

by Gomez on Jan 22, 2008 9:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Given the collapse of the NHL in the US

I'm amazed they haven't put a team back in Winnipeg, yet.

Or Quebec. Growing up I was a Nordiques fan.

by Llewdor on Jan 22, 2008 9:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It sounds like Winnepeg and Hamilton

are the front runners for new Canadian franchises.

by ningwers on Jan 22, 2008 10:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Eww, Hamilton?

I feel sorry for the players.

I have an irrational dislike of Hamilton, possibly due to their CFL team (the Tiger-Cats... seriously, that's their name).

by Llewdor on Jan 22, 2008 10:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I feel sorry for CFL players in general

Crappy pay, crappy conditions, weird football in half empty stadiums with listless crowds.

Of all the things I remember from The Rock's autobiography, his experience on the Edmonton Eskimos' practice squad is the one thing I remember, him and other teammates dragging piss-stained mattresses out of dumpsters so they'd have something to sleep on in their apartments.

by Gomez on Jan 22, 2008 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Unless they play in Saskatchewan

Those guys sell out every game, even though the stadium capacity (55,000) is 1/4 the population of the city (Regina's pretty small).

But yeah, the full-time players earn like $35,000. The teams do help them find off-season work, but usually only locally. If they players don't want to spent all year in Edmonton or Winnipeg or wherever (and having just played the Grey Cup game in -35° weather, I wouldn't blame them for wanting to get out of town), they're out of luck.

by Llewdor on Jan 22, 2008 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They are still living the dream

And Tiger-Cats? The Hamilton CFL franchise was a merger between two Hamilton teams -- the Tigers and the Wildcats.

by G_ on Jan 22, 2008 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

I didn't know that.

I knew that the Winnipeg Blue Bombers are so named because they started out as the RCAF team.

And the Edmonton Eskimos are so named because it's freaking cold in Edmonton.

by Llewdor on Jan 22, 2008 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I miss the two Rough Riders/Roughriders

by G_ on Jan 22, 2008 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That was brilliant

8 teams in the league, and two of them have the same name. It was perfect.

Ottawa always had such a crappy team, though.

by Llewdor on Jan 22, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And it was an obscure name

(unlike, say, Wildcats, Cougars, or Cardinals) for two Canadian teams even though it is most closely associated with a dead U.S. presdident.

by G_ on Jan 22, 2008 11:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Montreal?

by Matthew on Jan 22, 2008 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ignore me

I thought you were talking about the province as a whole; not the city.

by Matthew on Jan 22, 2008 10:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Has the NHL talked about having

multiple teams in a Canadian city? If a small town can support 2 minor league teams, can a wealthy metropolis like Montreal support 2? It's not like they have MLB or NBA teams to support.

I have virtually no hockey knowledge outside of some comments on this site. I never watch it on TV because I can't follow the puck (I don't own and can't afford a HDTV).

by Jed MC on Jan 22, 2008 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Having a team in Hamilton is essentially

like having two teams in Toronto. The viability of having two teams so close together (not to mention its proximity to Detroit) is one big issue about relocating to Hamilton, but given that the Leafs continue to sell out games despite putting out awful teams I'd say that the market's big enough to support two teams.

by ningwers on Jan 22, 2008 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose I probably should've mentioned

that Toronto area is by far the largest market in Canada, so it would be the best candidate for multiple teams. Montreal is an interesting idea too, but I'm not sure how many Habs fans would be willing to change allegiances.

by ningwers on Jan 22, 2008 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Toronto could probably support another team

except all Torontonians are rabid Maple Leafs fans.

Every Canadian city with 1 million people in it has a team already (there are only 32 million people in the whole country). Putting a team in Hamilton is effecively putting a second team in Toronto. Winnipeg has nearly a million people, and it's a 2 day drive from any other city with a team. After those two, I don't have any suggestions. Halifax?

And I'd like to point out that Canadians have been watching hockey on TV for 50 years. The trick is to follow the players, not the puck. You can tell where the puck is based on what the players do (plus, it's a black puck on a white background - dude).

by Llewdor on Jan 22, 2008 11:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thunder Bay deserves a team

just for the name.

by G_ on Jan 22, 2008 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They should move the Lightning there

... Corny, I know, but it would be pretty sweet.

by ningwers on Jan 22, 2008 11:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, once you've put a team in Winnipeg

you've pretty much tapped out every decent sized market in Canada. I guess you could try Quebec again, but I don't know enough about the area to know if the market's strong enough to support the return of an NHL team.

by ningwers on Jan 22, 2008 11:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

http://www.statcan.ca

Winnipeg's metropolitan area hold 1.15 million people.

Quebec's metropolitan area is only 760,000. But, most Canadian provinces have a major centre and then the rest of the province dislikes that major centre. Most Quebeckers don't like Montreal, so Quebec could draw from a much larger area.

The remaining provinces (Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, PEI) each hold fewer people than Winnipeg does (Saskatchewan's the only one to clear 1 million, but it's also the size of Texas, so you can't draw fans from the whole thing all at once).

by Llewdor on Jan 22, 2008 11:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Incidentally, I really like Saskatchewan.

It also has a well-written wikipedia article. I recommend it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatchewan

Interesting place. Big. Flat. Empty.

by Llewdor on Jan 22, 2008 11:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

For me watching the players

is not that helpful because I don't really understand the flow of the game. I know you're supposed to put the puck in the goal, but I don't know anything about plays or schemes or when they do line switches, etc. I respect the athleticism of these players, but I just don't know the game.

Up until about 6 weeks ago when my dad gave me a 29" TV after he upgraded to HD, I've never had anything bigger than a 13" TV. Try following a puck on that.

by Jed MC on Jan 22, 2008 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs