Which city deserve an NHL franchise and who don't?

Question

Deserve: Winnipeg, Hamilton, Quebec City, Milwaukee, Seattle

Don't: Florida, Tampa Bay, Carolina, Anaheim, Washington, St-Louis

Answer 1

Deserve-Quebec City,Winnepeg,Seattle,maybe SLC

Don't-Anaheim,New Jersey

I think Houston would be a good choice in the interest of the NHL I thinks its the largest city without a NHL hockey team.

Answer 2

Washington does and St Louis does. Give St Louis credit they were part of the '67 expansion. Although clearly you are just trying to get rid of certain teams to move them where you want them and it isn't only about them not belonging where they are. I mean come on how can you not pick LA, even pick them over Anaheim? Maybe you just forget about the Kings, like everyone has and always does except when Gretzky was there. Now what about Phenoix, oh wait I know they deserve the Coyotes because Gretzky is part owner right? Get real of the teams that should move they belong high up. Next why does Seattle deserve one? Don't say well they have the other sports because that isn't a good reason. I have no problems with Winnipeg or Quebec, not sure that Milwaukee, Seattle or Hamilton DESERVE one though. As to me I have no cities in mind, and would rather start a collapse instead of relocation. Just thought I would comment on your list.
OK and to those saying against Pittsburgh, where do you think will provide 75% or MORE since that was the one's complaint? Show proof that you would get that support and wouldn't get more in Pittsburgh. Don't talk about how it was before Mario either, because most didn't realize there was a team. Now it has a fan base so it is a different era. Besides Crosby isn't likely to go anywhere. Remember there is a max that can be paid by ANY team. The Pens could offer him that and then no other team could offer more and it would be about if he wants to be in the city or not, and NOT the Salary Cap. Although you proably don't know the Salary Cap and how it works.

Answer 3

I would argue that St' Louis does in fact deserve a NHL franchise and regardless of whether Hamilton deserves a team Toronto, Buffalo and Detroit will never let that happen so my list

Does: Hartford, Winnipeg, Quebec City, and MAYBE KC but I'm not completely sold

doesn't- LA, Florida, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, Nashville, Anaheim, Houston (they are after the Pens) and Nashville (it just bore repeating)


GO SABRES-one team, one goal

Answer 4

Kansas City deserves a hockey team. I know this will cause a stir because KC is considered a small market. However, we have a new, state of the art arena (Sprint Center) that will be complete by the summer of 2007. Corporate sponsers have already sold out all of the high priced suites. The facility will be managed by a management group that already has strong ties with the NHL. There is already a wealthy individual who wants to bring hockey to KC. KC also has had an NHL organizing committee (NHL 21) in place for some time now that has played a key role in establishing relationships in the hockey world with the goal of bringing an NHL team to KC. In summary, KC has set everything up to house a hockey team. What have other cities done but express desire? Look at Pittsburg....who I believe will NOT move to KC. They've been trying to get a new arena for 7 years? You've got to pay to play!

The Kansas City Chiefs draw 80,000 people to Chiefs home games. Do 80,000 Kansas Citians pack the house? No. They come from outlying cities like Wichita, Topeka, Lawrence, Omaha, Lincoln, Des Moines, Council Bluffs, Columbia, and Springfield. My son is fortunate to play on a travel hockey team based here in KC. All of these cities have hockey. Some cities have AHL teams or lower. NONE have the accessibility to NHL hockey that KC would provide. All would make trips to KC to watch NHL hockey.

KC had NHL hockey before. We lost it. Why? The team was part of the 1st expansion and was horrific winning only 27 games in two seasons and winning only 1 game in the last 44 games ever played here. The team owners left for better digs in Denver. They then moved to better digs in New Jersey. KC built a new arena (1974, Kemper) way back when and landed an IHL team. The Blades, a not-so-good NHL affiliate team, playing in an old arena (1990-2001) drew respectable crowds until the league folded at the end of the 2001 season. So everyone says hockey doesn't work in KC. The truth is, hockey will work in KC....it's our past owners and leagues that haven't worked for KC.

Answer 5

Winnipeg does not deserve another N.H.L team based on the fact that the team will not receive the proper fan support. The Jets were not the best team by far, but at least it was big league hockey. The fans only seemed to show up for playoff games. Winnipeg currently has an A.H.L team that does not sell out any games! If these fans can't support the team they have now, what makes them believe they can support an N.H.L team? I would like to see Hamilton get a shot before Winnipeg.
Out of those that don't deserve a team, i would have to say Nashville. Again, too many empty seats for a team at the top of the standings.

Answer 6

I don't think that us Flyers fans deserve the team as it is. We have diligently supported them and all they do is churn out tired revisions of the Broad Street Bullies. They are 2 and 5 in the Finals.

I personally don't think there should be teams below the Mason-Dixon Line. But if fans show support for the team then who am I to say which city deserves a team or not. Winnipeg supported the Jets but more money could be made in Phoenix. It shows how valuable fan loyalty is to owners.

I have nothing against southern cities or their fans. I feel that hockey is better served by staying regional.

Answer 7

Winnipeg is the most deserving, they can definately support a team and have a new NHL size arena. They would sell out most games but don't have a big a market as the southern cities. All of those cities deserve a team, I would pick Phoenix, Columbus, or Nashville before any of the above mentioned.

Answer 8

If you want to look at who doesn't deserve a team why not look at St Louis, Chicago (I know I'm gonna get ripped for that one), The Islanders, and possibly the Caps. Just look at the attendance of these franchises, they haven't been that good for years. Now maybe it's because the teams are horrible but that doesn't mean not supporting your team. Otherwise you'll become like Sabres fans. Everyone is ripping on Pittsburg, Why? They sell around 98% in a 16,000 seat horrible arena. Imagine if this team had an area with around 18+. If Pittsburg looses the teams, they'll be the modern day Hartford. It's stupid to take a team out a city where they draw, to move them to a place that could be more marketable (ex: Pheonix, Carolina).

Answer 9

What about The Minnesota Wild?

I think MN has proven itself as "NHL worthy". All the games are nearly if not completely sold out and The Xcel Energy Center is an awesome facility to watch the game. They're a young franchise, but are definitely headed in the long-term direction.

Not so sure about Milwaukee. I don't see there being a big enough fan base for the NHL.

Answer 10

I was/ am a huge fan of the old WHA so I think Quebec City and Winnipeg hands down deserve franchises.

Who doesn't deserve a hockey team? Any city in Florida. Hockey in Florida is just wrong.