VMR Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I think Seattle is a great idea for expansion. Having two in the same area off the bat though? I think it would be a mistake. Start with Seattle then some years later add Portland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keslerific Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I think Seattle is a great idea for expansion. Having two in the same area off the bat though? I think it would be a mistake. Start with Seattle then some years later add Portland. I think you need 2 to expand to do an expansion draft, could be wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 While I think Seatlte would be a great choice, I'm not so sure about Portland would make the cut. I could see San Diego or San Franciso being a more attractive market for the NHL to try an move into. Not saying that these would be better choices than Portland, just that the NHL would look at a market like San Diego, with a population twice that of Portland, and they would start to smack their lips. I could even see them taking a shine to places like Salt Lake City or Houston. Once again, not saying that I would prefer these sites over Portland, just that it's what I could see the brain-trust at NHL headquarters moving in those directions. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I'm kind of torn about whether I want this to happen or not. One on hand, it'd be nice to have a rival so close. On the other hand, I may have a tough time rooting for the Seahawks if our hockey rival is located there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl's Jn Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Why would they put a team in Seattle over a place such as Hamilton or Quebec City? really... seatle rocks... just look at how well the city promotes its sports... what does ham and quebec have?? go ti cats lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 How old is that clause? Just wondering how the Islanders and Devils got in. Edit- I'm also surprised the Kings let the Ducks in, but I guess they wanted the rivalary. I recall there being some hoopla out of Toronto about Buffalo coming in and impacting on their territory. To my recollection, Buffalo is more than 50 miles from Toronto, so I'm not sure if there was any actual transfer of funds when the Sabres came in to the NHL. This being said, both Toronto and Buffalo are griping about a team in Hamilton. I believe there is some sort of formula which makes an assessment of the value of the territory assumed to be lost to the new franchise, and they have to cough up a pretty hefty sum which goes to the established team in addition to the other costs of joining the NHL. Here's a fairly current article on two teams in one market in Canada. It may answer some questions that folks have: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/reports/briefings/bigleagues/briefing-12.aspx regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon4401 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 While I think Seatlte would be a great choice, I'm not so sure about Portalnd would make the cut. I could see San Diego or San Franciso being a more attractive market for the NHL to try an move into. Not saying that these would be better choices than Portland, just that the NHL would look at a market like San Diego, with a population twice that of Portland, and they would start to smack their lips. I could even see them taking a shine to places like Salt Lake City or Houston. Once again, not saying that I would prefer these sites over Portland, just that it's what I could see the brain-trust at NHL headquarters moving in those directions. regards, G. I would consider them looking that Vegas also but ya I think you are right with what the league is looking to move into Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 im actually quite aware of the history of the sonics' relocation... every franchise that moves has some sort of Problem. But if the sonics meant that much to seattle, they would have found a way to keep them. Period. If someone tried to relocate the Bulls, Lakers, Celtics etc... for any reason what so ever. There would be a war/riots If someone tried to touch the laffs, Caucks wings, Habs Etc... same thing would probably happen... If a sports franchise means a lot to a city, It will not get moved.. If the sonics meant a lot to seattle, They would not have been moved under any circumstance. a major city, representing a big region, With history, and a great rivalry with Portland lost their awesome up and coming team to a tiny city with 0 basketball/ major sport history. The "problem" is usually that the owner feels he can make more money in a new location. As to moving a franchise, in 1956 the fan bases for both the New York Giants and the Brooklyn Dodgers would have said the same thing. Their teams had been around for about 100 years at that time, and were very much loved by their avid fans. Both teams moved to California in 1957. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dedalus Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Seattle is a huge city per area. Its probably bigger than New York and LA in terms of its size. Greater Seattle is basically then entire North West quarter of the state. Lol. Seattle: 142.5 sq mi (369.2 km2) [0] LA: 503 sq mi (1,302 km2) [1] LA is almost three times bigger than Seattle. This reminds me why I don't post much on this forum. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangelos Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Why would they put a team in Seattle over a place such as Hamilton or Quebec City? Yea cause we really need another Ontario and Quebec team. We need more close western teams. There's far too much dispersion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Lol. Seattle: 142.5 sq mi (369.2 km2) [0] LA: 503 sq mi (1,302 km2) [1] LA is almost three times bigger than Seattle. This reminds me why I don't post much on this forum. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle [1] http://en.wikipedia....iki/Los_Angeles Yeah, we've missed your insight into everything so very much.... This being said, Seattle is a larger population center than Vancouver. It does seem to be a good choice for NHL expansion. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dedalus Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Yeah, we've missed your insight into everything so very much.... This being said, Seattle is a larger population center than Vancouver. It does seem to be a good choice for NHL expansion. regards, G. Haha. I could do without the sarcasm, dude. I'm just saying, it is pretty obvious. Even if you compare Greater Seattle with Greater LA, there is a much bigger difference. Having said that, of course, having a team in Seattle (and Portland) would be the next best thing to having more teams in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I think you need 2 to expand to do an expansion draft, could be wrong you're wrong. Lol. Seattle: 142.5 sq mi (369.2 km2) [0] LA: 503 sq mi (1,302 km2) [1] LA is almost three times bigger than Seattle. This reminds me why I don't post much on this forum. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle [1] http://en.wikipedia....iki/Los_Angeles he meant the seattle metropolitan area: 5,872.35 sq. mi. (15,209.3 km2) http://en.wikipedia....tropolitan_area compare that to the Los angeles metropolitan area: 4,850.3 sq. mi. (12,519.6 km2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area Haha. I could do without the sarcasm, dude. I'm just saying, it is pretty obvious. Even if you compare Greater Seattle with Greater LA, there is a much bigger difference. Having said that, of course, having a team in Seattle (and Portland) would be the next best thing to having more teams in Canada. no, Seattle metro area is larger (see above) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70seven Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 noone is moving. The league is set up for expansion, like it or not. The league has never been healthier financially, and this will make the owners that much more money, and increase TV deals. Also it makes perfect sense to add a couple west coast teams, and give them a bit closer to the benefit that all the east coast teams get with the schedule. Portland is a better market for a team IMO, but doesnt necessarily have the corporate support that Seattle would have, but theyre crazy for their teams in Portland, and wouldnt have an NFL or MLB team to compete with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dedalus Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 you're wrong. he meant the seattle metropolitan area: 5,872.35 sq. mi. (15,209.3 km2) http://en.wikipedia....tropolitan_area compare that to the Los angeles metropolitan area: 4,850.3 sq. mi. (12,519.6 km2) http://en.wikipedia....tropolitan_area no, Seattle metro area is larger (see above) Fair point, but you do realise when comparing those metropolitan areas, Seattle has a population of 3,552,157, while LA has 12,828,837 (as of 2010). Furthermore, Seattle has a density of 596/sq. mi., while LA's is 2,645.0/sq. mi.! Um...HUGE, HUGE, HUUUUUUGE difference. I mean, really, your point sounds forced/contrived. We all make bad assumptions at some point, this was just one of them. We can move on now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Fair point, but you do realise when comparing those metropolitan areas, Seattle has a population of 3,552,157, while LA has 12,828,837 (as of 2010). Furthermore, Seattle has a density of 596/sq. mi., while LA's is 2,645.0/sq. mi.! Um...HUGE, HUGE, HUUUUUUGE difference. I mean, really, your point sounds forced/contrived. We all make bad assumptions at some point, this was just one of them. We can move on now. i was just explaining what that guy meant. i had no point of my own. Clearly LA's population density/population is way higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 one interesting fact LA county Median household income: $56,241 Seattle metro area: $63,088 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vansicle Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 im actually quite aware of the history of the sonics' relocation... every franchise that moves has some sort of Problem. But if the sonics meant that much to seattle, they would have found a way to keep them. Period. If someone tried to relocate the Bulls, Lakers, Celtics etc... for any reason what so ever. There would be a war/riots If someone tried to touch the laffs, Caucks wings, Habs Etc... same thing would probably happen... If a sports franchise means a lot to a city, It will not get moved.. If the sonics meant a lot to seattle, They would not have been moved under any circumstance. a major city, representing a big region, With history, and a great rivalry with Portland lost their awesome up and coming team to a tiny city with 0 basketball/ major sport history. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Do some research on what happened to the Sonics. To say your comments are an oversimplification would be a gross oversimplification. I have, in the past, corrected countless comments similar in nature to your fallacious, erroneous keyboard diarrhea episode, but I don't have the patience any more to correct you or people like you. However, know that your comments regarding Seattle not meaning enough to Seattle to keep them assumes the control was in the hands of Seattle-ites. This, alone, proves that you are not at all "quite aware of the history of the sonics' relocation". I recommend you check your data, because, as it is, you are as misinformed as one thing can be about another thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 @Vansicle, agree with you completely. That team was taken out of Seattle by some of the best blundering I've ever seen. Some of these posters have obviously never been to a sporting event at the Key Arena. The Lakers wouldn't have survived very long in that building, let alone the Sonics. Between Daddy Starbucks, the OKC owners, city council, whom I say should never have given in to the greedy ownership group, and David Stern, this left Seattle folks with a very bad taste in their mouths. Did the NBA do the same thing in Vancouver? One of the reasons I'd be very leery of anything involving the NBA and Vancouver in the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 @Vansicle, agree with you completely. That team was taken out of Seattle by some of the best blundering I've ever seen. Some of these posters have obviously never been to a sporting event at the Key Arena. The Lakers wouldn't have survived very long in that building, let alone the Sonics. Between Daddy Starbucks, the OKC owners, city council, whom I say should never have given in to the greedy ownership group, and David Stern, this left Seattle folks with a very bad taste in their mouths. Did the NBA do the same thing in Vancouver? One of the reasons I'd be very leery of anything involving the NBA and Vancouver in the future They did. When Michael Heisley bought the Grizz, both he and Commissioner Stern promised that the team would be staying in Vancouver. Stern changed his tune so quickly, (stating that Vancouver wasn't supporting the team) it was obvious to anyone with eyes, that it had been their intention all along. The only reason I would even consider the NBA in Vancouver if I were a prospective owner, is the fact that the lying scumbag Stern is now retired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.