Which NHL team should be moved to another city? ...and why?

Question

I would moved at least 2 Amercican teams to Winnipeg and Quebec City. When I see results of an attendance of 7,000 people in St.-Louis, makes me say maybe we should move them to a city where there will be at least 15,000...

Answer 1

The Winnipeg arena in which the Jets played had a capacity of 13,985. If you look at their average attendance (link below), you can see they regularly had a lot of empty seats in the late 80s and 90s ... and this was at a time when the team was very solid. If they couldn't even sell out a 13,985 seat arena with a top calibre team, why should they get a team again?

See: http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_pho_attendance.html

The rink in Quebec city seats 15,750. If you look their attendance numbers, you can see they also had a lot of empty seats when they had an NHL team.

http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_col_attendance.html

Experience would indicate these cities are simply places where the needed number of seats cannot be sold.

Answer 2

@Awesome Bill, Can you spell biased? Since when are the Senators even in discussion to move. They have a new building, a billionaire owner who is committed to the market, and while they do lose money on down years, it is no where close to as much as a good chunk of other teams located in the US. The Oilers are only in the discussion due to their aging arena, nothing more. I find it funny though that you choose to ignore logic and facts in some blind hatred for Canadian teams. Hamilton is a "Canadian backwater"? I agree that the city's downtown is a little run down, but within an hours drive the city has over 6 million people, although obviously they would share the territory with the Leafs. Still, if that area of Southern Ontario is considered a "backwater" then EVERY SINGLE US CITY with the exception of LA, Dallas, NYC, and Chicago also qualify for that classification. Here's another fact you conveniently choose to ignore: If Phoenix relocates, IT WILL GO TO WINNIPEG. Conversations have been ongoing for years with TNSE and coupled with Bettman's leaked letter to Daly last year, it would be extremely ignorant and blind to say otherwise. As for Quebec City, it may a "backwater" in your eyes, but if you have ever been you would know that it is easily one of the most beautiful cities in North America. As for K.C., you certainly won't get an NHL team AND an NBA, it will likely be one or the other or neither. With only 2 million population, K.C. would become the smallest metropolitan area to host all 4 pro sport teams. I would argue that market is already on the verge of being saturated and the NHL should look elsewhere, whether that would be Canada or some place like Houston or Seattle.

Answer 3

My point of contention with the NHL is that they are trying to open up the market to the casual fan. That means placing teams farther south of traditional hockey loving regions. I think in time the league will shrink. I cannot pick any single team to move for there are about 12 that I would like to convert into at least 2 Canadian teams and perhaps put a team in Wisconsin and maybe Maine. I'd say any team located south from St. Louis including the Blues is putting a strain on the league. I'd even consider moving the Capitals.

Answer 4

This is in response to all the people who are looking down on the Blues. When they joined the league all those years ago, they started out fresh and made the playoffs every year since then until last season. You can't say that St. Louis is only a baseball city, either. I can guarantee you that up until last year, the Blues would be able to fill the house each night. Not to mention, the St. Louis Rams have also had a number of good years since relocating to St. Louis. You should keep in mind that just because a franchise has one or two bad years does not mean they deserve to be kicked out of their home cities. You should look at teams who have had continually poor attendance over the last 5 or 6 years perhaps or teams who are in need of new stadiums, such as the Penguins. Final point- a couple of bad years does not merit losing a team.

Answer 5

If you say SHOULD be moved, then what about the L.A. Kings? Come on plenty of teams in that little area. I know people will be well LA is the second largest Media Market crap, like how they try to justify that they should have a Football team. On the other hand they would still have the Ducks close enough to the market. What about Tampa Bay, or Florida. One of them can easily be moved and still have a team down there for the fans that are there. I could go on about other teams, that are more about attendence or something, but I am going by where they have teams close enough and teams don't really belong. As to the Penguins, they are proably the most likely to move, but the question was which SHOULD be.

Answer 6

I agree with your choice of cities. Colorado's Stanley Cup really belongs to the people of Quebec. Anyways, one team i would get rid of is Columbus. They are useless and have very little talent on thier roster. They have some potential in Leclaire in goal and of course Rick nash is there but their is not other scoring options.

The other team I would move is the Phoenix Coyotes. They should have never have left Winnipeg. The only reason why Gretzky is coaching there is because they might leave town. This is much like a publicity stunt like Super Mario coming back multiple times to save the Pens. They are more talented then the Blue Jackets. They have a soon to be new starter in Tellquist and Nagy is a genuine sniper. Also, having Roenick and Nolan aren't bad either. All I know is that hockey doesn't belong in Phoenix.

Answer 7

Get rid of Atlanta and bring back the Hartford Whalers.
That way, the new Whalers will be competitive with Kovalchuk, Hossa and Lehtonen.
Columbus and Florida should probably move up to Canada.
The Blue Jackets and the Panthers do not seem to have much of a following.
I would probably say Nashville, but they're competitve so they should stay for as long as that lasts.
Up until last yr I would've said Carolina.

Answer 8

Winnipeg and Quebec just needed to build a new arena they don't get the support as American teams do which the State and all the townships around the city that they want to build a new arena in are help by this places and money is donated to build an arena which in Canada the government doesn't help so makes it harder to build a arena. the Bell Centre in Montreal is paying over $20 million in taxes every year which doesn't help compare to the little taxes that are payed in the U.S. Minnesota got there team back so can the Jets and Nordiques. the new owner of the Pens promised Lemieux he will keep the team there if the city helps to build a new arena which looks like it will not happen, so he will in all of his powers try to bring a team back in Canada which they should, the best bet he would move them to Kitchener-Waterloo not Hamilton which does have a arena of 19,000 seats but will be harder to get cause of being next door to Toronto.


GO HABS GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Answer 9

the blues aren't going anywhere, they have a strong fan base when the on ice product is at least passable as an nhl team....i would move florida and nashville to the cities you mentioned....quebec city and winnipeg...

Answer 10

I agree with the answerers that, yes, some of the reasoning for the expansion on the US side was a bit precipitous at the time and is proving so now. It is more likely, however, that the move will be US town to another US town simply because growth potential is a better risk in a US town than in a Canadian town.