LGR4GM Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 Atlanta just moved to Winnipeg and Phoenix is all but dead. So what About the Islanders? They signed some ridiculous lease agreement (http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/06/23/nassau-county-islanders-announce-lease-agreement/) and I dont think in 2015 the owner Charles Wang will or even could re-up that lease agreement considering that it has crippled the islanders franchise and made it a joke for a very long time now. The owner could sell the team, or try to move it after his lease is up and according to (http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Future-of-the-Islanders-hangs-in-the-balance-of-;_ylt=AjZ6fTJUg491.MSnkTwsPdF7vLYF?urn=nhl-wp9939) Wang says he's lost $230 million in the 11 years meaning a change is imminent. Which brings me to Kansas City's Empty Arena If i were an owner losing that kinda money and there was a arena that was already in existence and seriously looking for a franchise, why not move? So what do people think, would it help the NHL and or the Islanders (I hate watching crappy hockey) to move to Kansas City where they would give another fringe eastern conference team the ability to move into the East (columbus, detroit). It has some interesting possibilities considering that Kansas is not a hockey town... so could it be? I know its the Islanders and we don't care that much but as Hockey fans should we hope the Islanders move for their own sake and the NHL's brand sake?
RazielSabre Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 Atlanta just moved to Winnipeg and Phoenix is all but dead. So what About the Islanders? They signed some ridiculous lease agreement (http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/06/23/nassau-county-islanders-announce-lease-agreement/) and I dont think in 2015 the owner Charles Wang will or even could re-up that lease agreement considering that it has crippled the islanders franchise and made it a joke for a very long time now. The owner could sell the team, or try to move it after his lease is up and according to (http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Future-of-the-Islanders-hangs-in-the-balance-of-;_ylt=AjZ6fTJUg491.MSnkTwsPdF7vLYF?urn=nhl-wp9939) Wang says he's lost $230 million in the 11 years meaning a change is imminent. Which brings me to Kansas City's Empty Arena If i were an owner losing that kinda money and there was a arena that was already in existence and seriously looking for a franchise, why not move? So what do people think, would it help the NHL and or the Islanders (I hate watching crappy hockey) to move to Kansas City where they would give another fringe eastern conference team the ability to move into the East (columbus, detroit). It has some interesting possibilities considering that Kansas is not a hockey town... so could it be? I know its the Islanders and we don't care that much but as Hockey fans should we hope the Islanders move for their own sake and the NHL's brand sake? I hope something happens, for their sake and for the NHL brand. Kansas City thing was pretty interesting, thanks for that. I don't think they'll move though. If this referendum doesn't happen I think they'll wait it out, it's been this long and Charles Wang's voiced nothing public about being desperate to move.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 If they don't get a new building on Long Island, I bet they end up in Brooklyn in the Nets' arena ...
Eleven Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 If they don't get a new building on Long Island, I bet they end up in Brooklyn in the Nets' arena ... That's what makes the most sense. KC doesn't seem like it would have any more an appetite for hockey today than it did 35 years ago. EDIT: Google just told me that the Brooklyn arena will be too small for hockey.
deluca67 Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 The NHL can't allow the Islanders to move. To have one the NHL's all-time great dynasties move would be a terrible blow. It would be like the A's, Bears or Reds jumping to new cities. It can't be allowed.
dEnnis the Menace Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 The NHL can't allow the Islanders to move. To have one the NHL's all-time great dynasties move would be a terrible blow. It would be like the A's, Bears or Reds jumping to new cities. It can't be allowed. But what about Quebec or Winnipeg moving back in the day? Or The Whalers?
deluca67 Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 But what about Quebec or Winnipeg moving back in the day? Or The Whalers? Those teams do not have the history the Islanders do, not even combined.
SDS Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 The NHL can't allow the Islanders to move. To have one the NHL's all-time great dynasties move would be a terrible blow. It would be like the A's, Bears or Reds jumping to new cities. It can't be allowed. Agreed 100%. They were not a flash in the pan - they were spectacular for almost a decade.... But what about Quebec or Winnipeg moving back in the day? Or The Whalers? What about them? You can fit their franchise achievements on the head of pin.
dEnnis the Menace Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 Those teams do not have the history the Islanders do, not even combined. Agreed 100%. They were not a flash in the pan - they were spectacular for almost a decade.... What about them? You can fit their franchise achievements on the head of pin. Noted lol. I never got to see them play, nor do I know much about their history compared to that of the Islanders. I just wasn't sure if they could be compared or not, and based on your responses...no.
SDS Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 Noted lol. I never got to see them play, nor do I know much about their history compared to that of the Islanders. I just wasn't sure if they could be compared or not, and based on your responses...no. http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/NYI/
SwampD Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 Those teams do not have the history the Islanders do, not even combined. http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/NYI/ So, they put together 4 good years in a row and now they are this long, storied franchise (one that nobody cares about right now)?? I'm not buyin' it. By these metrics, it's more important that they stay where they are over the Sabres, or that it is more important that Carolina stays put over Buffalo for that matter. For me, an NHL team makes way more sense in Quebec than it does in Nassau county.
dEnnis the Menace Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/NYI/ I didn't realize they were THAT good for that long. I see what the two of you are saying now. Thanks for that history lesson!
deluca67 Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 So, they put together 4 good years in a row and now they are this long, storied franchise (one that nobody cares about right now)?? I'm not buyin' it. By these metrics, it's more important that they stay where they are over the Sabres, or that it is more important that Carolina stays put over Buffalo for that matter. For me, an NHL team makes way more sense in Quebec than it does in Nassau county. Carolina was never a Dynasty. The Islanders were a team that dominated an entire era not just a single season.
deluca67 Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 I didn't realize they were THAT good for that long. I see what the two of you are saying now. Thanks for that history lesson! It can be argued that the Islanders are more responsible for the Sabres Cup drought than any other team. That 1979-80 Sabres team is probably the best in Franchise history.
Eleven Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 The NHL can't allow the Islanders to move. To have one the NHL's all-time great dynasties move would be a terrible blow. It would be like the A's, Bears or Reds jumping to new cities. It can't be allowed. Agreed. But as long as they stay on that island somewhere, even Brooklyn, I think it should be ok. Actually, as long as they're in the NY Metro area, I think it should be ok, even if that means they're on the mainland somewhere (Westchester Co.?)
korab rules Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 It can be argued that the Islanders are more responsible for the Sabres Cup drought than any other team. That 1979-80 Sabres team is probably the best in Franchise history. And then there's that whole connolly thing...
Tom Backyard Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 If they don't get a new building on Long Island, I bet they end up in Brooklyn in the Nets' arena ... I live down the street from the new arena. Oh please, oh please let hockey come to within walking distance of my house! There has been some talk that the Nets' new arena wouldn't be large enough to hold an NHL rink, but this morning, that rumor was put to rest (presumably). Quote below taken from fannation.com 08:21 AM ET 08.01 | What happens if Charles Wang's hopes of getting a building off the ground fails? [We] have no indication if Gary Bettman would be loyal to the market and to the team's fans or whether he would be loyal to Wang, if the owner chose to sell or move the team out of market rather than selling it to someone like say Nets' owner Mikhail Prokhorov, who might want to bring the club to Brooklyn. I had been under the mistaken impression that the arena rising in Brooklyn would not have ice-making capacity. I was corrected this week by an arena/Nets representative who informed me that Barclay's, which is scheduled to open in time for the 2012-13 NBA season, is being constructed to accommodate an NHL-sized rink.
Tom Backyard Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 But then again, it's probably just a dream. Here's a rebuttal to what I found this morning. Nets Daily Link
Eleven Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 But then again, it's probably just a dream. Here's a rebuttal to what I found this morning. Nets Daily Link I didn't know it was Forest City that was developing Barclay's Center. That company owns the Boulevard Mall. So when you shop, the Nets win! (Not really.)
RazielSabre Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 So, they put together 4 good years in a row and now they are this long, storied franchise (one that nobody cares about right now)?? I'm not buyin' it. By these metrics, it's more important that they stay where they are over the Sabres, or that it is more important that Carolina stays put over Buffalo for that matter. For me, an NHL team makes way more sense in Quebec than it does in Nassau county. While it seems they had about a decade run of being near the top of the standings, including 4 straight cups I also do think do much is made of it with regards to 'not being allowed to move'. Business is business. If Nassau can properly support a hockey team (support = make a profit, decent arena, high attendance rates) perfect but if not I would fully support move to a city that could, great franchises are made and lost.
wjag Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 So, they put together 4 good years in a row and now they are this long, storied franchise (one that nobody cares about right now)?? I'm not buyin' it. By these metrics, it's more important that they stay where they are over the Sabres, or that it is more important that Carolina stays put over Buffalo for that matter. For me, an NHL team makes way more sense in Quebec than it does in Nassau county. I'm with you. When they were great, they were really great. And the rest of the time, not so much. And I was a young lad last time they were great. But having said that, I'm never in favor of a franchising moving.
PromoTheRobot Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 Seattle might make more sense. The NHL needs a pacific NW outpost and natural rival for the Canucks. PTR
Eleven Posted August 2, 2011 Report Posted August 2, 2011 While it seems they had about a decade run of being near the top of the standings, including 4 straight cups I also do think do much is made of it with regards to 'not being allowed to move'. Business is business. If Nassau can properly support a hockey team (support = make a profit, decent arena, high attendance rates) perfect but if not I would fully support move to a city that could, great franchises are made and lost. I think they had good attendance right up until, and maybe even after, Wang bought the team. He's a shithead. I believe the Isles have a strong fanbase, and I really wouldn't want to see them move. Put it this way: In my lifetime, they've been incredibly more successful than their cousins across the East River. They built a good team, and cultivated good fans, the old-fashoined way, rather than by buying everyone in sight (a Rangers practice that started with Espo, if not before, and continues to the present day, with exactly one Cup to show for it). Their fans are more dedicated--not more in number, but more dedicated--than Rags fans who constantly demand that the team buy the latest toy to retain their interest. Wang's an idiot; the arena sucks; the fans shouldn't suffer for it.
Weave Posted August 2, 2011 Report Posted August 2, 2011 So, they put together 4 good years in a row and now they are this long, storied franchise (one that nobody cares about right now)?? I'm not buyin' it. By these metrics, it's more important that they stay where they are over the Sabres, or that it is more important that Carolina stays put over Buffalo for that matter. For me, an NHL team makes way more sense in Quebec than it does in Nassau county. They've had alot more than 4 good years. Until 2000 the Islanders were a more successful team than Buffalo. They both had 13 90pt + seasons between 72 and 00, but NY had those Stanley Cups. The problem for them has been the last 11 years. And they've still had 4 playoff appearances in the last 11 years, only one less than Buffalo. In the same timeframe (72-00) the Rangers have 14 90+ pt seasons and have been in the playoffs 5 times since 00. There's a real good argument to be made that the Islanders are every bit as important as the Rangers and Sabres over the time they've been in exsistance.
Eleven Posted August 2, 2011 Report Posted August 2, 2011 They've had alot more than 4 good years. Until 2000 the Islanders were a more successful team than Buffalo. They both had 13 90pt + seasons between 72 and 00, but NY had those Stanley Cups. The problem for them has been the last 11 years. And they've still had 4 playoff appearances in the last 11 years, only one less than Buffalo. In the same timeframe (72-00) the Rangers have 14 90+ pt seasons and have been in the playoffs 5 times since 00. There's a real good argument to be made that the Islanders are every bit as important as the Rangers and Sabres over the time they've been in exsistance. Yep. The NHL made a huge mistake approving Wang as an owner, even after it had already failed to adequately perform due diligence on John Spano. It shouldn't compound that mistake by allowing a move of the team outside the NYC metro area.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.