Seattle’s sports landscape permanently changed after the Seahawks won their first Super Bowl in February, but that championship is a far cry from the city’s first major sports title.

That honor belongs to the Seattle Metropolitans, who in 1917 defeated the Montreal Canadiens to become the first U.S. team to lay claim to the venerable Stanley Cup, a feat the Hockey Hall of Fame drew attention to on Tuesday.

On this date in 1917 the Seattle Metropolitans became the first U.S. based team to win the Stanley Cup. pic.twitter.com/rAinrr8mM5 — Hockey Hall of Fame (@HockeyHallFame) March 25, 2014



The Metropolitans folded after the 1924 season, but a recent surge in conversation has renewed interest in the possibility of an NHL franchise in the Emerald City. A Feb. 27 Seattle Times article revealed that the league could issue a “letter of intent” to one of three Seattle-based ownership groups in the following weeks, and though Greg Wyshynski of Yahoo Sports argued that expansion might be slightly further off, Seattle seems to top the NHL’s list of potential destinations.

So what are the pros and cons for pucks in Seattle?

A hockey team could raise Seattle’s prestige on the national sports scene. Currently, the city lays claim to teams in only two of the four major North American sports leagues (sorry MLS and WNBA, you just don’t count yet). That puts Seattle in the same category as places like Buffalo, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Nashville and San Diego — not exactly the movers and shakers in the sports scene.

A third team would elevate the city’s sports profile alongside the likes of Atlanta, Houston, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Toronto, certainty much more cosmopolitan locales and heavier hitters in the realm of professional sports. Add the Washington Huskies to the mix — plus the Sounders and Storm for that matter — and Seattle suddenly becomes a major sports destination. While it’s true that a metropolitan area is certainly more than a collection of teams, it cannot be denied that a city’s sports franchises — and their fortunes — impact the overall perception of the place.

But it’s not like Seattle is a proven hockey mecca either. There would be an element of risk involved with an expansion franchise not unlike that of the Atlanta Thrashers, who lasted just 13 seasons before transforming into the second incarnation of the Winnipeg Jets in 2011.

Unlike Atlanta, however, Seattle didn’t have an established Canadian NHL neighbor (or is that neighbour?) 150 miles to the north. An NHL franchise in the Emerald City would provide a geographic rival for the Vancouver Canucks, whose closest current opponent is the Calgary Flames, nearly 1,000 km away. The presence of the Canucks would also give Seattle puck fans a team to hate right out of the gate — and don’t underestimate the ability of a hated rival to rile up a team’s fan base. (Am I right Seahawks, Niners fans?)

Securing an NHL squad might not be as important as the corresponding building to house it. Sportspress Northwest’s Art Thiel reported last week that the Seattle City Council would not extend the memorandum of understanding it had in place with potential Sonics owner Chris Hansen and Co. to accommodate an arena deal without an NBA franchise. But if the prospective NHL owners can get a deal done and have a ready-made home in waiting for a possible NBA team, the league could return to Seattle during its next round of expansion. Adding a hockey team doesn’t necessarily mean professional hoops will follow, but an arena certainly could help the city’s case.

So what do you think, Seattle fans?

[poll id=”56″]

Visit seattlepi.com for more Seattle news. Contact reporter Stephen Cohen at stephencohen@seattlepi.com or @scohencopy.