Which team should move to KC?

Question

Kansas City wants an NHL team. Theoretically, which current NHL team would be the best choice to move there?

Answer 1

The New Jersey Devils. The New York area has three teams, and the Devils seem to have the weakest fan base of those three. Has anyone seen a Devils game on TV? More than half of the seats are empty. Two friends of mine went to a Devils game and they said the same thing, so it's not just the expensive rink side seats that aren't selling. The Devils used to be the Kansas City Scouts anyway, give the Kansans their team back. They could surely do a better job of supporting NJ than the current fan base is.

Answer 2

I agree with the poster above me...

No offense, but Kansas City isn't exactly an 'ideal' location for a hockey franchise. I prefer places where hockey is a hot bed. What about Maine, Wisconsin, North Dakota, or anywhere else in the Northeast or Canada. In my opinion, if a team is moving or we're adding teams, that's where teams should go. Sure some teams take off, especially after success (Carolina, Tampa Bay, etc), but it's usually only until their sucess fades. In my opinion hockey needs to get back to its true, long-time fans. Sure, it always is great to have new fans, etc, but by moving teams out of Canada and the Northern, more traditional states, the NHL is only alienating the life long fans. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have a franchise in KC; it might take off like no other. However, there is a strong likelyhood it wouldn't. I don't know which KC you're talking about, but either way, I'm assuming the people around there that actually follow hockey are Blues fans. You won't get most of them to convert to the new team. So, it'll always be a second-rate team, until there is some great success. The fans will likely be people who don't know a lot about hockey and go to games as something to do on a friday night or whatever. And the best crowds the team will have are when they play the blues. I look at the Blue Jackets franchise, and that's a lot of what's going on in Columbus right now. They haven't had the success they would like to, and while there are some very true fans, most of the people around Ohio that were hockey fans already have their team, and don't root for the Blue Jackets. The biggest crowds they usually have are against the Red Wings, and it's a huge advantage to the Wings because it's like a home game for them.

So, that's why I don't think that ANY franchise should move there.

Answer 3

Some businessmen might want to bring a team to KC but can they support a team? I mean look at a team like the Leafs, they have sucked forever yet they always sell out. Then a team like Pittsburgh has been on the brink of bankruptcy a couple of times. If they didn't get Crosby and Malkin where would they be now? Next year will Carolina draw more than 10 thousand a game? Ever heard of the Kansas City Scouts? KC had their shot and couldn't support a team. Give it to Hamilton, afterall if you can tolerate living there then you deserve a team.

Answer 4

Realistically, no team would be good to put in KC. That is not a good NHL market, and I think if another American city gets a team, it would probably be Houston. Theoretically, I would move the Kings. All the jaded LA people who only go to games that celebrities go to don't deserve a team.

Answer 5

NONE! There are 3 Canadian Cities that have larger populations than KC that would love a franchise. And unlike US teams, win or lose, ALL Canadian Franchises sell out every game and broadcast every game on TV. These team-less cities, the size of KC or larger - Quebec City, Winnipeg, Hamilton.

Seriously, if any move St Louis. The moving bill will be cheaper as it is so close.

Answer 6

The Phoenix Coyotes. They'll still be terrible, but at least Kansas City has a climate that real ice can exist in. Plus I live in Missouri and I would like another team in state other than the St. Louis "Blose". That way I'd be able to see the Sharks play live more than twice a year.

Answer 7

Anaheim.

LA is a big town, and can support two teams. But my reasoning is that hockey isn't that popular to warrant two teams. The Ducks are a strong team, the last team in KC was very bad. It would seem a great pairing, if not timely.

Hey, I'd trade the Flyers for a real hockey team!

Answer 8

None they already have a team in St Louis and the N H L needs to put teams in the Northern reaches of the country where the Fan base is strongest.If any thing Florida, California etc... Have too many teams and need to go back North.Washington,Wisconsin, Montana,Nebraska etc... have no teams and it's a shame.

Answer 9

St. Louis. They have low attendance where the are now, and if the state of Missouri of all places gets two hockey teams while the entire country of Canada gets six, I don't know what Canadian hockey fans would do, but it wouldn't be pretty. However, I believe that teams should stay put for now and see what pans out in the post-lockout hockey world.

Answer 10

none. Kansas City area is a desert for hockey interest