In 2011, the NHL saw a team move for the first time in years, when the Atlanta Thrashers headed to Winnipeg to become the reborn Jets. The destination wasn't a surprise—Winnipeg had been rumored to be in the running for a team for years. But many were expecting that it would be the struggling Phoenix franchise that would be on the move. Instead, the Coyotes stuck around for another year of speculation about an eventual move of their own.
But where? Several cities have been linked with the league in recent years, many with strong cases. But each candidate also comes with a unique set of challenges, and success is far from guaranteed. It goes without saying that the league is under heavy pressure to make the right choice.
I want to help. So I've put together a list of some of the six most frequently mentioned candidates for NHL relocation, and carefully considered the pros and cons of each one.
Hamilton, Ontario
Background: Jim Balsillie has been trying to move a team to the city for years, but has been rejected as a potential NHL owner on the grounds that he has actual money.
Pro: Hockey players are often said to have their best years in their late twenties; if the same applies to hockey arenas, Hamilton should be all set.
Con: If Hamilton ever gets an NHL team then Toronto will want one too, according to the guy in the next cubicle who also still says, “Whazzup?” and quotes dialogue from the Austin Powers movies.
Seattle, Washington
Background: Was actually the first American city to win the Stanley Cup back in 1917, thanks to a late goal by grizzled veteran Mark Recchi.
Pro: Recently had its NBA team blatantly stolen, so probably wouldn't feel too bad about doing the same to some other city.
Con: Vancouver Canucks fans report that unpredictable weather patterns in the Pacific Northwest can sometimes cause springtime heat waves so sudden that fans need to remove their shirts on live television.
Las Vegas, Nevada
Background: Hockey in the desert? That's practically guaranteed to work!
Pro: If the league insists on losing money on a doomed and reckless gamble, it should at least do it somewhere where it'll have company.
Con: Might be hard for fans in attendance to follow the puck, thanks to all the steam rising up from where the ice used to be.
Kansas City, Missouri
Background: Has already tried to lure the Penguins and Islanders in recent years, although that just turned out to be part of a weird plot to try to impress Bryan Trottier.
Pro: Would immediately have a natural geographic rivalry with the St. Louis Blues, and it would be a nice change for someone in the hockey world to remember that the Blues still exist.
Con: The city is called Kansas City but is not located in Kansas, which probably doesn't impact its ability to support a hockey team, but has always just kind of bothered me.
Markham, Ontario
Background: This town north of Toronto is working towards building an NHL-ready arena, after residents complained that the traffic jams on the 404 weren't quite long enough.
Pro: Falls just outside of Buffalo's boundary for compensation, and screwing over the Sabres on a technicality is one of hockey's richest traditions.
Con: Might not be the first choice of the NHL, which tends to prefer that teams are located in large cities, or medium-sized cities, or small cities, or any kind of actual city.
Quebec City, Quebec
Background: The Nordiques made the mistake of trading for Wendel Clark in 1994; being forced to leave Toronto made him so sad he punched the entire franchise to Colorado.
Pro: Could immediately resume a rivalry with the Montreal Canadiens, which would be great because that worked out so well for Quebec City the last time around.
Con: The city's population must not be very interested in hockey anymore, because if you go around town asking, “Who is your favorite NHL player?” most people just stare at you like you're speaking a different language.