The NHL’s expansion draft for its newest franchise, the Seattle Kraken, will be held in less than two weeks. It comes just four years after Las Vegas was added to the league.
The other major winter sports league doesn’t seem to be in any rush to add new franchises, however. Commissioner Adam Silver was asked about the possibility of increasing the league’s 30-team membership this week. He made it clear that it’s not near the top of his priority list.
“The most important considerations for us when we look at expansion is, will it ultimately grow the pie? Meaning, it’s potentially 30 more jobs if you expand with two teams,” Silver said. “You expand the league’s footprint. How does that help us in varying ways, sort of increased support nationally. So we’ll continue to look at it. I mean, I’ve said this many times before, we’re certainly not suggesting we’re locked at 30 teams. I think at some point it will make sense to expand, but it’s just not at the top of the agenda right now.”
Seattle, which lost its franchise to Oklahoma City, has long been considered the most likely city to get the next franchise. Las Vegas is also a strong contender, but there are plenty of other options.
Domestically, Kansas City, Louisville, San Diego, Nashville, Tampa and Pittsburgh have been mentioned to varying degrees; the league could also look at major international cities such as London, Vancouver, Montreal and Mexico City.
The Players Association would likely endorse expansion, since it would create more opportunities for players to wear an NBA uniform.
That leads us to our question of the day: Should the NBA seriously consider expansion in the near future? If so, which cities are most deserving of a franchise?
Please take to the comments section to weigh in on this topic. We look forward to your input.
The NBA is interesting because they utilize so many cities where they are the only pro sport team: OKC, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, Orlando, Memphis, Sacramento.
Cities that could home a team: Seattle, Vegas, St Louis, and Cincinnati
I think the NBA has the talent level to have two more teams
You mentioned three cities who’ve had and lost an NBA team. I do like the idea of bringing NBA back to cities who’ve lost a team, if those markets can adequately support a franchise.
St. Louis has proven time and time again that they’re mostly a baseball town.
The NFL failed twice there. Even the Rams couldn’t compete with the Cards.
That’s asinine. St. Louis arguably is a bigger hockey town than baseball town lately and support soccer enough to lead to an MLS team. St. Louis absolutely deserves a look for an NBA team.
It’s kind of weird that you celebrate the NBA utilizing cities where they are the only game in town (you forgot Portland that also only has an NBA team) and then focus on four cities that have a total of 3 MLB teams, 3 NFL teams, and 3 NHL teams between them.
I would think after your first comment you would be more supporting of a city like Louisville which also has no other pro sports team.
Totally forgot about Portland, just listing them off the top of my head.
I don’t think celebrating is what I was doing. It was more of an acknowledgment more than anything.
Yeah let’s further water down a watered down product
Seattle and Vegas. Send Minnesota to the Eastern/Central division where they belong.
Actually, switch to two divisions of eight teams in each conference, and with four team subdivisions; then you have a built-in format for all the mid/during season tournaments the league seems to be clamoring for, and further expand the play-in gimmick.
If you do 2 expansion teams you should let teams dump their trash contracts but they gotta give up a 1st and for each year left on the deal past 1 yr they give up a 2nd.
Like ok Love goes to Seattle with next years 1st and a 2nd the following year.
And the Cavs are out of his contract.
They have the expansion draft
As the G-league is becoming more established, and the parity continues to get tighter, I think expansion in the next 3-5 years is really doable, but still not quite yet
Possible expansion cities I think would make sense are obviously Seattle, and the 2nd team becomes interesting b/c you would prefer it to be somewhere in the west, so you could move Memphis and New Orleans into the eastern conference…that being said, there are a couple of areas in the east that could be good options like Richmond, Virginia and Louisville, Kentucky. Then in the west, there is Vancouver, although that didnt do great previously, so Mexico City, Mexico, although they just opened their g-league team, so probably less likely there…Omaha, Nebraska could also be an interesting option, or maybe somewhere in Kansas
I dont like the idea of Vegas. I like it as more of a homebase for the league, and I also think it moght impact certain other teams based, as well as potential issues with the betting scene out there. Also, that town has become a lot more crowded the last few years, and not sure they want to deal with another team, when talking to local people there, they already are annoyed about the nfl being there
Las Vegas is ANNOYED that the NFL is there???? I had to read your comment several times to believe that you really wrote what I thought I read.
If anything, the NBA should consider contraction. The talent is not deep enough to support the teams already in the league. NBA expansion is a solely an attempt by Adam Silver and the NBAPA to enrich the present owners and players with no interest in addressing issues like the inherent prejudice by the league toward the Lakers’ and Celtics’ success while the rest of the league is regularly assigned the role of the Washington Generals, or the ridiculous soft salary cap which allows certain few teams to load up on stars while the Utah’s and Milwaukee’s of the league are forced to be grateful for one remarkable season every 25-30 years.
If you dont think parity exists right now, and will continue to become more prevalent every year, I dont know what sport you’re watching
Of course expansion will grow the pie; not so much if Vegas is included… not many people live around there and they already have teams. But anything will work including doing nothing so all is justified.
Vegas metro is over a million people, that is more than ‘not many’.
Amillion is not large and I meant AROUND there but not there. Like, in the desert. LV is in a desert. There’s not many coming in from the hinterlands like there is in most of these other cities mentioned. This stuff can be looked up and considered rationally in terms of MSAs or CSAs. It does not have to be guessed at or known for being a favorite spot.
Richmond isn’t even as big as the Norfolk area and they like sports there. The market sizes of Louisville and Omaha would not impress NBA voters either.
Seattle and KC have the best chance of growing the pie.
X% doesn’t even live in the US but acts like he is an expert about it.
Take him with a gram of salt.
Where am I from then, in your version?
A: in Arecliner… you know near Arouter.
Lil D’s too-quaint suggestions are farther down although the sites may be a joke.
Hmm Ann Arbor does already have blacks passing thru it.
I think KC is an interesting place, KU right nearby so there’s already a good basketball fan base. Figure the league will probably move a team to Vegas regardless.
Seattle is frequently mentioned but doesn’t make sense to me having a team there with the Blazers in Portland, maybe they relocate them.
I mean I feel like they moved the team from Seattle for a reason, not sure but can’t imagine they had a huge fan base.
Extremely loyal fans in SEA got screwed because ownership wanted a taxpayer funded new stadium.
BTW Portland is a 5 hour drive from Seattle, not remotely the same market. It is halfway between SF and SEA.
I mean it’s definitely a similar market, SEA has football, baseball, now hockey and POR has basketball. No crossover.
Btw just checked and SEA to POR is 2.5 hours driving and SEA to SF is 12.5 hours.
But yeah never really heard a ton about why they got moved, that’s a shame about that ownership issue.
Seemed like citizen animus to an ownership cash-grab. Vancouver also got shorted; bad initial management turned fans from the honeymoon momentum.
San Jose is now 2 hours (traffic) drive from San Francisco, where the Warriors live (and its near impossible to get tickets).
San Jose has more people than any other potential location (11th largest city in the US).
San Jose has more money than any other potential location (tech).
San Jose has an NHL team and a MLS team and sell out almost all the games, the fans there are massive and rabid and SJ needs more teams.
The Bay can handle two MLB and NFL teams, it can handle two NBA teams.
Michigan ann arbor needs a team. They’re a college.
Newfoundland/eastern canada and Maine area. It is winter so plenty of indoor sport.
Lincoln, Nebraska is up and coming and also has strong college presence. Think they deserve it more…change my mind
How about, it’s not about you? Or anyone else in particular.
The NBA has to grow internationally as that is where the largest unmined market is for basketball. Europe and Asia are probably too far for a team, but a mid season tournament could be run in a number of select cities and countries could provide a more interesting way of expanding than adding more teams in the short run.
California has way too many teams! One has to go. Canada deserves a 2nd team. Move the Clippers to Seattle, give Vegas and Vancouver Canada teams and move Grizzlies and Pelicans to the east where they belong.
Ah yes, put teams where there is LESS people! Genius! They totally will do this!
San Jose WRECKS Seattle, Vegas and Vancouver, across the board. They do not have one element of what is needed to have a NBA team that SJ doesnt do better. It is plainly obvious its the best place to put a new team. You just want FAILED NBA cities another chance, while denying a city that deserves one more. Give up your childhood dude, its not coming back. New blood comes first, dont let failures back in so fast.
Sounds crazy and maybe senile, Anchorage, Alaska. I thought a NHL team would be suitable area but I think basketball would do well there. It’s in closed arena would keep the colder elements out.
Anchorage is an out-of-the-box suggestion. I don’t think it’d work though because you’d have to pull entirely from the city for fans, as there aren’t nearby areas where you could pull from. Also, you’d have to scout and develop well; as that’d be a hard sell to free agents.
Those flights are a HARD PASS
hawaii and san jose split a team.
Seattle and Las Vegas should both have teams.
And considering the folks who have to go to loan sharks after a trip to Las Vegas, I’ve already thought of a name … The Vegas Vigs …
Manhattan has the Knicks and Brooklyn has the Nets. So what about Queens??? (Population almost a million more than Manhattan) … Maybe the Kings could move there … The Queens Kings … Ok …
No one wants to admit that both NYC and the Bay Area actually have a MASSIVE amount of room for more teams. Brooklyn needs an MLB team like yesterday, and San Jose needs to claim the 49ers (they play 10 minutes from the Sharks stadium) and get NBA and MLB teams. Its the 11th biggest city in America – no one acknowledges this, and its surrounded by SF/west bay, Oakland/east bay, who are big markets enough on their own.
Why not move the Kings from Sacramento to Vegas instead of expanding? The Las Vegas Kings sounds wonderful too.
Maybe because the Kings don’t want to move there. These teams are not chess pieces that one person can move around at will.
California already has four teams, Vegas is a two hour drive and there are only two original NBA teams that still play in the same location, so I guess moving ain’t so bad.
I didn’t say moving was bad, I said one person doesn’t get to make the decision to move all the teams. This is not a video game where you can change the settings and just decide what happens with every team. Each team has to decide its own fate and more often than not, those decision are not remotely similar.
I’m from the UK so a London based franchise would be superb. Give the Europeans a team to cheer for and the NBA literally will have direct access to hundreds of millions of potential fans. Spain, France, Italy, Serbia, Greece etc all love basketball and the UK are following suit. Would love to see a team based in Europe somewhere if not London then Paris would be special too.
The flights are too long to make the NBA an international league
If you think load management is a problem now, just wait until you get a team that is in Europe. All of the stars will get minor “injuries” and need to stay home to avoid the long flight and associated jet lag in both directions. Not to mention the crazy amount of travel for the players on a London team. Flying from Portland to Miami once a year is bad enough, but a London team’s shortest road trip would be longer than that.
The NBA would be better off just creating a European league if they want exposure there. Maybe they could have like a AA franchise. Use the G League as the close AAA team to shuttle players back and forth, but use Europe as a training ground for young players unlikely to make the big clubs this year.
I’m based in Europe myself and love the idea of a European franchise. However, to be viable, the NBA would have to create an entire European division and that seems far fetched right now.
I think hiflew has a point: the NBA could work together with the Euroleague and funnel is G League Elite team players over there. The brand combination of the NBA with some of the European teams would be incredibly powerful.
As I said many times, Seattle must be a lock…
Then I would really like a team either in San Juan… that would bring 1oo’s of millions of hispanic fans on board, plus is still in the USA… & who wouldn’t wanna go to see a game in the dreary January in the Caribbean, right?
Or if not San Diego would be a good B option for San Juan!
Hundreds of millions? I think you might want to either recheck the population of Puerto Rico or stop assuming that all Hispanics across the world will blindly follow a Puerto Rico team.
I am hispanic… are you?
Didn’t think so amigo!
Yes I am Hispanic on my mother’s side. And just because you are Hispanic does not mean you aren’t capable of making stereotypical assumptions about the entire group of Hispanics on Earth either.
NBA should not expand any further. There are already too many teams. The NBA game is not healthy. It’s indicated by, among other things, the state of player procurement and development. With 30 teams, it’s nearly impossible for non-tanking teams to build methodically through the draft, as, for playoff teams, their first pick is essentially a 2nd rounder. The contract rules (necessitated by the bloated league) give teams zero incentive to develop players, other than on a short term limited basis.
Historically, there are, at times, good reasons for a league to expand. They don’t exist here. Good expansion is usually done in conjunction with franchise relocations. Because expansion is almost always dilutive in the short term, it should be used only where relocation possibilities are exhausted.
Expansion could also theoretically grow your player base. I mean let’s just say Seattle got a team tomorrow, since it’s oft mentioned. Children born in the area may grow up Supersonics fans instead of Seahwaks fans, and they may want to play basketball. I realize it’s a significant what if, but the potential positive impact is not nil.
Player procurement and development runs independent of the number of teams, anyway. Some franchises are just incompetently run. But, if the NBA feels it’s a problem, the solution is more developmental leagues and programs; not to stifle growth.
Bottom line, expansion is really going to only be based on one thing: money. If the money is there, the league will expand. If not, it won’t.