frissonic Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 The other day, I read an article about possible expansion cities. The 6 mentioned were Milwaukee, Hartford, Seattle, Portland OR, Salt Lake City, and Boise. If Living within a half-hour drive of SLC, I'm hoping that we get the nod when the time comes. Here are my arguments for expanding out here. 1. East coast is already peppered with teams. Throwing a team in Hartford (again) when they've already lost a team doesn't seem feasible (though please don't bring up Minnesota and/or Winnipeg). 2. In the western half of the country, there are precisely 5 teams in the US and 3 in Canada: Denver, Phoenix, LA, Anaheim, and SJ in the US; Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver in Canada. Salt Lake bridges a pretty large geographic gap between 5 of those teams: Denver, Phoenix and the west coast US teams. Some of you may say that geography doesn't matter. If it didn't matter, Buffalo would have been awarded a MLB team in 1991 instead of Denver. So Salt Lake fills a void that Milwaukee, Seattle, Hartford do not. That leaves Portland, and Boise. 3. Metropolitan Salt Lake has a population of 2.5 million. That includes Salt Lake County and 5 surrounding counties, all of which are connected by major interstates: the I-15 and I-80. No location in those 5 counties is more than approximately 45 minutes from downtown SLC. Boise, by comparison, has just over 600,000. Portland has a subsantial population, but there again, geographically speaking it doesn't fill the gap that SLC does. 4. We already have an arena that's been proven to be a world-class skating facility in The Maverik Center (formerly known as The E-Center). The 2002 Winter Olympics ice hockey competition ALL took place in that facility. Currently, it holds just over 10000 seats; however, that could easily be expanded to 17500-20000+ with some reconstruction. Anyway, I know I'm just spouting off ideas, but once I read that article, I started number crunching and figuring out how SLC compares to the other considered cities. We *should* be at the top of the list. Questions is ... are we? Some have speculated that nothing should interfere with the heralded Jazz (who I personally cannot stand watching, but that's just me out of 2.5 million ...). Some have even said that hockey couldn't survive here because there'd be so little interest. Of course, those were Jazz fans who couldn't bear to have anything compete with the Jazz, so I don't put a lot of stock in their rantings. I don't know ... I think Salt Lake could pull it off. It'd be awesome to drive 45 minutes to catch a Sabres game one a year or so, to speak nothing of the opportunity to support a local NHL team. I'd be one of the first to pick up season tickets for my fam of 4, though I'd probably split it with some other WNY ex-pat friends of ours. </psychobabble>
Taro T Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 The other day, I read an article about possible expansion cities. The 6 mentioned were Milwaukee, Hartford, Seattle, Portland OR, Salt Lake City, and Boise. If Living within a half-hour drive of SLC, I'm hoping that we get the nod when the time comes. Here are my arguments for expanding out here. 1. East coast is already peppered with teams. Throwing a team in Hartford (again) when they've already lost a team doesn't seem feasible (though please don't bring up Minnesota and/or Winnipeg). 2. In the western half of the country, there are precisely 5 teams in the US and 3 in Canada: Denver, Phoenix, LA, Anaheim, and SJ in the US; Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver in Canada. Salt Lake bridges a pretty large geographic gap between 5 of those teams: Denver, Phoenix and the west coast US teams. Some of you may say that geography doesn't matter. If it didn't matter, Buffalo would have been awarded a MLB team in 1991 instead of Denver. So Salt Lake fills a void that Milwaukee, Seattle, Hartford do not. That leaves Portland, and Boise. 3. Metropolitan Salt Lake has a population of 2.5 million. That includes Salt Lake County and 5 surrounding counties, all of which are connected by major interstates: the I-15 and I-80. No location in those 5 counties is more than approximately 45 minutes from downtown SLC. Boise, by comparison, has just over 600,000. Portland has a subsantial population, but there again, geographically speaking it doesn't fill the gap that SLC does. 4. We already have an arena that's been proven to be a world-class skating facility in The Maverik Center (formerly known as The E-Center). The 2002 Winter Olympics ice hockey competition ALL took place in that facility. Currently, it holds just over 10000 seats; however, that could easily be expanded to 17500-20000+ with some reconstruction. Anyway, I know I'm just spouting off ideas, but once I read that article, I started number crunching and figuring out how SLC compares to the other considered cities. We *should* be at the top of the list. Questions is ... are we? Some have speculated that nothing should interfere with the heralded Jazz (who I personally cannot stand watching, but that's just me out of 2.5 million ...). Some have even said that hockey couldn't survive here because there'd be so little interest. Of course, those were Jazz fans who couldn't bear to have anything compete with the Jazz, so I don't put a lot of stock in their rantings. I don't know ... I think Salt Lake could pull it off. It'd be awesome to drive 45 minutes to catch a Sabres game one a year or so, to speak nothing of the opportunity to support a local NHL team. I'd be one of the first to pick up season tickets for my fam of 4, though I'd probably split it with some other WNY ex-pat friends of ours. </psychobabble> I wouldn't be surprised to see the league expand 2 teams towards the end of the decade. Assuming Bettman is still commish at that time, increasing US footprint for TV would be the driving force of the expansion. 1 team would end up in Seattle or Portland. I'd expect to see the other one be in SLC or KC w/ Milwaukee as the darkhorse. Boise is way too small and isolated to be on the league's radar. I don't see the league going back to Hartford (4 teams in general vicinity) nor Quebec City (language). I don't see a team going to Houston either. It's a good town for the AHL but I don't believe they would ever support an NHL squad. They'd support a winner reasonably well (though not great) and wouldn't support a bad team at all. If Bettman isn't leading the charge, I could see a Canadian city get a 2nd team (TO or outside possibility of Vancouver) or a team start up in Windsor/Hamilton. I know several people here would like to see contraction, but I just don't see that happening. Adding 2 more 8 or so years out seems more likely to me.
nobody Posted June 21, 2011 Report Posted June 21, 2011 Put together an ownership group and the Coyotes can be all yours!
frissonic Posted June 21, 2011 Author Report Posted June 21, 2011 Put together an ownership group and the Coyotes can be all yours! ownership group requires money, which in my household would be in drastically short supply to buy a team. maybe someday, when i win the powerball or whatever. hell, i don't even know any rich people to drag along for the ride.
FogBat Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 I wouldn't be surprised to see the league expand 2 teams towards the end of the decade. Assuming Bettman is still commish at that time, increasing US footprint for TV would be the driving force of the expansion. 1 team would end up in Seattle or Portland. I'd expect to see the other one be in SLC or KC w/ Milwaukee as the darkhorse. Boise is way too small and isolated to be on the league's radar. I don't see the league going back to Hartford (4 teams in general vicinity) nor Quebec City (language). I don't see a team going to Houston either. It's a good town for the AHL but I don't believe they would ever support an NHL squad. They'd support a winner reasonably well (though not great) and wouldn't support a bad team at all. If Bettman isn't leading the charge, I could see a Canadian city get a 2nd team (TO or outside possibility of Vancouver) or a team start up in Windsor/Hamilton. I know several people here would like to see contraction, but I just don't see that happening. Adding 2 more 8 or so years out seems more likely to me. I've been out there. There's no way the league would even look at Boise. They already have an ECHL team and they appear to be quite content with that. Interesting punt, though. OTOH, if you want to relocate a team from the US to Canada, I suggest moving Dallas to Yellowknife.
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 send the canes back to hartford
apuszczalowski Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 The league is not going to expand, they have enough teams struggling and looking at possible relocation now (Phoenix, Florida, Columbus maybe). The league is in no shape to be able to expand. Bettman has also already mentioned that Quebec City (at the same time when he said Winnipeg was one of the areas he wanted to see the NHL return to) is one of the places being considered for future relocation IF they get an NHL arena built and have an ownership group (they are working on both right now) - KC right now only needs a willing ownership group and they could get a team because they have an NHL ready arena already. - Hartford would be a possibility because Bettman seems like he is willing to give places a second chance to get a team back. - Seattle/Portland always come up as possibilities - Hamilton is too close to Buffalo and Toronto, and Black has already said the Sabres are working hard this offseason to try and expand more into Southern Ontario, no way they just give up potential fan base area to a Hamilton team - Boise just seems too small for a pro team - Salt Lake might be a possibility if there is a market for hockey there Bettman has also said that Balsillie (RIM owner, creater of the Blackberry) will get his chance to be an owner in the future meaning a team in Kitchener/Waterloo is likely, with a brief stop in Hamilton first until a new arena is built in Kitchener/Waterloo There won't be any expansion
stevecana Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 The other day, I read an article about possible expansion cities. The 6 mentioned were Milwaukee, Hartford, Seattle, Portland OR, Salt Lake City, and Boise. If Living within a half-hour drive of SLC, I'm hoping that we get the nod when the time comes. Here are my arguments for expanding out here. 1. East coast is already peppered with teams. Throwing a team in Hartford (again) when they've already lost a team doesn't seem feasible (though please don't bring up Minnesota and/or Winnipeg). 2. In the western half of the country, there are precisely 5 teams in the US and 3 in Canada: Denver, Phoenix, LA, Anaheim, and SJ in the US; Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver in Canada. Salt Lake bridges a pretty large geographic gap between 5 of those teams: Denver, Phoenix and the west coast US teams. Some of you may say that geography doesn't matter. If it didn't matter, Buffalo would have been awarded a MLB team in 1991 instead of Denver. So Salt Lake fills a void that Milwaukee, Seattle, Hartford do not. That leaves Portland, and Boise. </psychobabble> I remember my great grandfather (Sibby Sisti) talking about this a long time ago and saying how great it would be to have a MLB team in Buffalo because "we deserve one".
sabres1970 Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 Portland may be the best option at this point. Very underrated sports town, you look at the two teams they've been given (the Trail Blazers and their MLS team) and they prove that they have enough interest to support an NHL team. Big enough metr area, and no team really close to it.
Claude_Verret Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 send the canes back to hartford ... and miss the pillaging twice a year and the satisfaction that comes with annoying canes fans and Luke DeCOCK? Never!!!
darksabre Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 I remember my great grandfather (Sibby Sisti) talking about this a long time ago and saying how great it would be to have a MLB team in Buffalo because "we deserve one". Buffalo DOES deserve one. If you're from Buffalo and don't want to root for the Yanks or BoSox, you're basically SOL on baseball. Buffalo could easily support a major league team, and not having one is an injustice.
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted June 22, 2011 Report Posted June 22, 2011 ... and miss the pillaging twice a year and the satisfaction that comes with annoying canes fans and Luke DeCOCK? Never!!! oh yeah I forgot sorry what was I thinking
FogBat Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 oh yeah I forgot sorry what was I thinking hahahahaha... Those 'Canes fans are never going to be able to live that one down. ;)
deluca67 Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Toronto should get a second team before any other city gets one. Unless a team returns to Quebec or Hartford, that's just me being sentimental. Toronto is the #1 hockey market in the world and could easily support an entire divisions worth of teams. If Terry Pugula is really all about winning and not about money he should come out in full support of a team in Hamilton. Expand "Hockey Heaven" to the region from Rochester to Buffalo to Hamilton to Toronto. There are certainly enough hockey fans to support it.
X. Benedict Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Buffalo DOES deserve one. If you're from Buffalo and don't want to root for the Yanks or BoSox, you're basically SOL on baseball. Buffalo could easily support a major league team, and not having one is an injustice. There is no way Buffalo could easily support an MLB team IMO. Average MLB ticket around $45 X Average gate 29,000 X 81 games.......ain't gonna work here.
HopefulFuture Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 The other day, I read an article about possible expansion cities. The 6 mentioned were Milwaukee, Hartford, Seattle, Portland OR, Salt Lake City, and Boise. If Living within a half-hour drive of SLC, I'm hoping that we get the nod when the time comes. Here are my arguments for expanding out here. 1. East coast is already peppered with teams. Throwing a team in Hartford (again) when they've already lost a team doesn't seem feasible (though please don't bring up Minnesota and/or Winnipeg). 2. In the western half of the country, there are precisely 5 teams in the US and 3 in Canada: Denver, Phoenix, LA, Anaheim, and SJ in the US; Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver in Canada. Salt Lake bridges a pretty large geographic gap between 5 of those teams: Denver, Phoenix and the west coast US teams. Some of you may say that geography doesn't matter. If it didn't matter, Buffalo would have been awarded a MLB team in 1991 instead of Denver. So Salt Lake fills a void that Milwaukee, Seattle, Hartford do not. That leaves Portland, and Boise. 3. Metropolitan Salt Lake has a population of 2.5 million. That includes Salt Lake County and 5 surrounding counties, all of which are connected by major interstates: the I-15 and I-80. No location in those 5 counties is more than approximately 45 minutes from downtown SLC. Boise, by comparison, has just over 600,000. Portland has a subsantial population, but there again, geographically speaking it doesn't fill the gap that SLC does. 4. We already have an arena that's been proven to be a world-class skating facility in The Maverik Center (formerly known as The E-Center). The 2002 Winter Olympics ice hockey competition ALL took place in that facility. Currently, it holds just over 10000 seats; however, that could easily be expanded to 17500-20000+ with some reconstruction. Anyway, I know I'm just spouting off ideas, but once I read that article, I started number crunching and figuring out how SLC compares to the other considered cities. We *should* be at the top of the list. Questions is ... are we? Some have speculated that nothing should interfere with the heralded Jazz (who I personally cannot stand watching, but that's just me out of 2.5 million ...). Some have even said that hockey couldn't survive here because there'd be so little interest. Of course, those were Jazz fans who couldn't bear to have anything compete with the Jazz, so I don't put a lot of stock in their rantings. I don't know ... I think Salt Lake could pull it off. It'd be awesome to drive 45 minutes to catch a Sabres game one a year or so, to speak nothing of the opportunity to support a local NHL team. I'd be one of the first to pick up season tickets for my fam of 4, though I'd probably split it with some other WNY ex-pat friends of ours. </psychobabble> Where you at? Provo/Orem? I worked on the power plant along Lake Utah back in 07, I loved it there. Absolutely spectacular. I miss it out west.
frissonic Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Posted June 23, 2011 Where you at? Provo/Orem? I worked on the power plant along Lake Utah back in 07, I loved it there. Absolutely spectacular. I miss it out west. I live in the Ogden area, but work just east of the airport in SLC. I moved out here in '95 and have loved it ever since. How long were you out here? Did you make it to Timpanogus Cave or Bridal Veil Falls? Yah, there's an allure out here that I just can't shake. I love me some Buffalo home-grown attitude and accountrements, but *nothing* beats the scenery out here. I'm 4.5 hours from Yellowstone. With the exception of 2010, 2002, and 1999, I haven't missed a year since my first trip up there in 1998. I've LOVED watching all the saplings grow in the 1988 fire-burned areas. They're starting to obscure a lot of the view driving in through the west entrance, but man ... the place is just psychotically amazing to see. As a Yellowstone aside, I have actually seen a bear defecate amidst the trees. No lie. Even got it on video in case some smart aleck ever asks if bears do indeed sh** in the woods.
Eleven Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Talent is diluted as it is; I don't want any expansion. Especially with teams ripe for movement.
FogBat Posted June 24, 2011 Report Posted June 24, 2011 Talent is diluted as it is; I don't want any expansion. Especially with teams ripe for movement. THIS!!!
IKnowPhysics Posted June 24, 2011 Report Posted June 24, 2011 I previously did my reading and replied my thoughts here: Nominate US Cities for NHL Teams TL;DR: Maybe: Houston, Kansas City, Seattle Maybe not: Milwaukee, Sacramento, Indianapolis Hell no: Las Vegas, Salt Lake Downtown Milwaukee is VERY close to the 90 mile radius from the United Center. I think it's definitely a market that would embrace a new NHL team, but I question whether the metro Milwaukee area, being only 1.7M people, is a town that has enough high-end luxury advertising and spectating dollars to support all four major sports (Bucks, Brewers, and essentially Packers). They'd probably grab the attention/money of a lot of the state of Wisconsin (some just to spite the Wild and the Blackhawks), but Wisconsin seems to be pretty hockey-happy with college (Badgers), juniors (Gamblers), and the AHL (Admirals). I HATE the idea of Las Vegas, and it's not just a well-founded anti-southern hockey bias. I have a hard time believing that a Las Vegas fan base would be well rooted in the community and that the team would not just be a marketing attraction for tourists. I know people actually live in LV, but most major corporate sponsors, obviously, would be tourism dollars. That, and that town is over-saturated with entertainment attractions to distract sports spectating dollars. No major sports teams have taken root there, despite the existence of population and wealth, and that's likely for a reason. Salt Lake City only has 1.1M in its metropolitan area. Probably a good spot for Western expansion by the AHL, unless SLC is surprisingly NUTS about hockey, like Buffalo-nuts about hockey. Hard to believe. Kansas City has a good chance at a team. The metro area has 2.1M people. The Sprint Center opened in 2007 and isn't in use (but it only seats 17,500 for hockey- marginal). KC already has the Royals and the Chiefs, so whether the town could support another major team might be a little questionable. I'm not sure how popular hockey is in Missouri outside of St Louis. Houston, being the 4th largest city in the US, is an enormous TV market ($$$$, Bettman = 8-D). The Aeros seem to do well and hockey seems to have taken root surprisingly well in Dallas. The city has a lot of large corporate sponsor possibilities (oil money). There might some distraction/money-competition from the three other major sports teams (Royals, Texans, Rockets). The Toyota Center seats 17,800 for hockey and is the home of Rockets and Aeros (probably movable). On paper, like I'm sure Phoenix did, it looks like a solid prospect, but this hockey-in-the-south thing is far from a sure bet. I can see why the availability of huge, rich cities like Houston make it hard for Bettman to do the right thing and put hockey back in Winnipeg or QC. Sacramento, for the same reasons as the more populous San Diego, seems like AHL expansion territory. There's a lot of people and money, but hockey in California is a surely-but-slowly growing endeavor. Sacramento is also almost exactly 90 miles from San Jose. The upside is that with the Sacramento Kings departing for Orange County, Sacramento has an open arena, no other major sports teams, and likely a large number people hungry for pro sports, albeit not necessarily hockey-crazy. Indianapolis is also another decent candidate. It's a large TV market (2M people + rest of Indiana) and a midwestern hockey climate. But the HUGE detractor is that there's no arena suitable for an NHL team. The Conseco Field House could be used temporarily (it seats 14,400 for hockey) while a new arena is being built. There would be competition with the Pacers, Colts, and motor sports. ... Las Vegas' population has been exploding with no end in sight. Maybe a franchise could get in early, endear the people, and ride that wave until it's fanbase is cemented as LV's population reaches towards four million people. But currently I'm not sure if even LV can financially support endless distraction, especially if that distraction doesn't have tits or semiannual cast changes. One market I overlooked somewhat is Seattle. It's 110+ miles from Vancouver, setting it up as a perfect border battle. The market is huge (3.5M+) and growing; it's basically much the largest US market without a team (not counting downtown SF near SJ and the Inland Empire of LA). The downside is that the only arena suitable for hockey is the KeyArena, which is totally unsuitable for hockey (built in 1962, 11,000 capacity for hockey, and the worst sight lines imaginable). The arena used to be home to the SuperSonics (NBA) and the Thunderbirds (WHL), but both have left; they left at least in part because they couldn't renovate or build a new stadium. The only tenants left are a little D-I NCAAB school, a WNBA team, and roller derby. Laughable. If the SuperSonics' departure served as a big enough embarrassment, maybe Seattle could straighten its ###### out and build a new building. If they did that, I'm sure it would make them the new #1 US destination for an NHL franchise on the go (and likely another NBA franchise).
Buffalo Sports Man Posted June 24, 2011 Report Posted June 24, 2011 There was talk, in the neighborhood of when the Hamilton Predators rally happened (Ahh the zaniness of Jim Balsillie before Bettman put a gag order on him) that if there were going to be expansion that Vegas was a likely target because Jerry Bruckheimer had a concern together, Kansas City (before the group didn't come together) a Second Toronto or Hamilton Franchise and a PacNW team. Expansion is not going to happen. I agree with previous posters on the failing teams concern. Talent pool I'm not quite as worried about, but it's a little bit of a concern. Realistically, unless the NHL doubles it's fan base by the end of the twenty-teens, expansion is impossible. If not for the fact that Quebec City, Jim Balsillie and the NHLPA would scream the league out of business (and the fact that it would be a terrible PR move for the league) I'd say that contraction was more likely.
Doohicksie Posted June 25, 2011 Report Posted June 25, 2011 I'm currently reading a book by Robert Swados,* lawyer for the Knoxes and others. He was instrumental in bringing NBC to Buffalo in the 1950s, in the bid to bring MLB to Buffalo in the 60s, and was the legal point man and helped flesh out the ownership team for the Knoxes and crafted the proposal that resulted in the Sabres franchise being awarded to Buffalo. In 1968, the rumor was, and it was even printed in some newspapers in NYC, that the National League expansion teams would be San Diego and Buffalo. Swados was one of those present for the announcement, and it was just prior to the final announcement that someone told the Buffalo group that the franchise would be awarded to Montreal, not Buffalo. They were crushed. That was probably Buffalo's best shot at getting MLB. I don't think they'll ever come that close again. *Robert Swados is the great uncle of a guy I work with down here in Texas.
nobody Posted June 25, 2011 Report Posted June 25, 2011 I'm currently reading a book by Robert Swados,* lawyer for the Knoxes and others. He was instrumental in bringing NBC to Buffalo in the 1950s, in the bid to bring MLB to Buffalo in the 60s, and was the legal point man and helped flesh out the ownership team for the Knoxes and crafted the proposal that resulted in the Sabres franchise being awarded to Buffalo. In 1968, the rumor was, and it was even printed in some newspapers in NYC, that the National League expansion teams would be San Diego and Buffalo. Swados was one of those present for the announcement, and it was just prior to the final announcement that someone told the Buffalo group that the franchise would be awarded to Montreal, not Buffalo. They were crushed. That was probably Buffalo's best shot at getting MLB. I don't think they'll ever come that close again. *Robert Swados is the great uncle of a guy I work with down here in Texas. Bob Rich was on WGR on Friday promoting his new book - he mentioned how they almost had a deal made to move the SF Giants to Buffalo - they would have been called the NY Giants.
Robviously Posted June 25, 2011 Report Posted June 25, 2011 Bob Rich was on WGR on Friday promoting his new book - he mentioned how they almost had a deal made to move the SF Giants to Buffalo - they would have been called the NY Giants. That would have been absolutely amazing. There's a ton of history with that name/franchise. OTOH, it's definitely better for baseball and for that franchise that they stayed put.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.