leafs_rock_go_mccabe Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 As a general comment I think having three teams in California is a bit much. I don't feel that any one in particular should be moved, but that having Los Angeles, Anaheim, and San Jose seems like a lot for a U.S. state that never gets snow or ice. Can anyone comment on the health of these franchises? Is there one in particular that has struggled over the past decade to the point where it would be in consideration for relocation? Are all three franchises healthy, happy, organizations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaubie Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 I don't think it would be better for the league to have even more teams. I think less teams would actually be better for it. So relocation: Florida to Hartford, Atlanta to Quebec, Phoenix to Winnipeg, Nashville to north western US or Hamilton. For the last one, I'm not sure if there is a viable market out there but geographically, there's no team in that area so maybe if there was they'd get support from a larger area. I guess it could be said that Hamilton would be the better option because it is known that there is already a market there. I know I'd take the drive down the QEW to see a game if the opportunity was there. What I'm curious about with regards to Hamilton is if a team were ever to be relocated there how expensive it would be to a fan. Would it be Toronto-esque or more towards Tampa-esque? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathradio Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 No one has said to remove Tampa. Thanks!!! Tampa is the better of the two Florida hockey markets. They are going to be better, the one Floridian franchise who could one day survive without Snowbirds-induced sellouts. As a general comment I think having three teams in California is a bit much. I don't feel that any one in particular should be moved, but that having Los Angeles, Anaheim, and San Jose seems like a lot for a U.S. state that never gets snow or ice. Can anyone comment on the health of these franchises? Is there one in particular that has struggled over the past decade to the point where it would be in consideration for relocation? Are all three franchises healthy, happy, organizations? Move either L.A. or Anaheim to Milwaukee and the other will be doing just fine. San Jose is actually one of the better Southern U.S. markets. I don't think it would be better for the league to have even more teams. I think less teams would actually be better for it. So relocation: Florida to Hartford, Atlanta to Quebec, Phoenix to Winnipeg, Nashville to north western US or Hamilton. For the last one, I'm not sure if there is a viable market out there but geographically, there's no team in that area so maybe if there was they'd get support from a larger area. I guess it could be said that Hamilton would be the better option because it is known that there is already a market there. I know I'd take the drive down the QEW to see a game if the opportunity was there. What I'm curious about with regards to Hamilton is if a team were ever to be relocated there how expensive it would be to a fan. Would it be Toronto-esque or more towards Tampa-esque? The one thing we know is that Hamilton will cut Toronto's waiting list for season tickets. They say the waiting list is about 25 years (about 375,000 slots) but I'm not so sure about that number. I think it is closer to 50,000 than to 375,000. I'd say that the price will be closer to Sabres' prices (if it has a good following then it could go as high as Habs home games) rather than Tampa-esque, while clearly not going to be Toronto-esque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIENS27 Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Why do we want to add any more teams? The talent pool gets further diluted every time teams are added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostyHAWK Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Colorado -> Québec (colorado doesn't have money troubles but they have no fans. phoenix -> winnipeg ( these two teams deserve to go back where they BELONG.) Islanders -> Milwaukee or something like that Florida - > kansas city or Seattle L-A kings - > Louisville or something bring em' all north Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 No one has said to remove Tampa. Thanks!!! If a team from Florida had to go, it would obviously be the Panthers. Tampa won a Cup and Cup winners should only be moved as an utter last resort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlHabsFan Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Tampa will have a really good team. What is the attendance like there? Hard to say, considering the last 3 seasons have been horrid. Lots of snowbirds and transplants, of course, but hockey in general is picking up down here. Its already made its way into some high school programs and different levels of leagues. I think its really coming around. As a general comment I think having three teams in California is a bit much. I don't feel that any one in particular should be moved, but that having Los Angeles, Anaheim, and San Jose seems like a lot for a U.S. state that never gets snow or ice. Can anyone comment on the health of these franchises? Is there one in particular that has struggled over the past decade to the point where it would be in consideration for relocation? Are all three franchises healthy, happy, organizations? Well, look at the size of California and its population. Its as big as 4 or 5 of the eastern seaboard states. So I dont think 3 teams there is unreasonable (If NY can have 3 teams in such close proximity) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nine1One Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Hard to say, considering the last 3 seasons have been horrid. Lots of snowbirds and transplants, of course, but hockey in general is picking up down here. Its already made its way into some high school programs and different levels of leagues. I think its really coming around. Ya I'm working on getting a lot of my friends into it, We're planning a trip to go see the habs there sometime too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathradio Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Colorado -> Québec (colorado doesn't have money troubles but they have no fans. phoenix -> winnipeg ( these two teams deserve to go back where they BELONG.) Islanders -> Milwaukee or something like that Florida - > kansas city or Seattle L-A kings - > Louisville or something bring em' all north Because the fans they lose today would later result in money troubles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlHabsFan Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Ya I'm working on getting a lot of my friends into it, We're planning a trip to go see the habs there sometime too Always a good time at the forum. I love it there. The energy is usually pretty good, win or lose. And I love the access the fans have to the players. The wall behind me at work has autographs of Vinny, Marty, Stamkos, Malone, Kovalev, Higgins, Lapierre, Price, Huet, both Kostitsyns, Gainey, Carbo, Markov, Hammr, Koivu, etc etc. And all on photos I took at the games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlHabsFan Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Colorado -> Québec (colorado doesn't have money troubles but they have no fans. phoenix -> winnipeg ( these two teams deserve to go back where they BELONG.) Islanders -> Milwaukee or something like that Florida - > kansas city or Seattle L-A kings - > Louisville or something bring em' all north Those would be horrible choices. Take the kings from Los Angelas and move them to Kentucky? Not really a hot bed of hockey. Kansas City and Seattle dont have the money. Look at their baseball/footbal teams. And Milwaukee is a Brewers/Bucks/Packers town. I cant see hockey really sprouting there either. Now Miami for a team is horrible. I dont know how they got a team, and I dont really picture a 90% hispanic area really being into hockey at all. They are totally catering to the snowbird crowd and transplants. Tampa is the oddball of the south where hockey seems to work (Atlanta is failing as bad as when the Flames were there. Thats not a hockey city either. The population there is strongly into their Falcons, Hawks & Braves. As well as the college football Bulldogs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathradio Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Then, how did San Jose work, considering that the Bay Area has a lot of Hispanics and Chinese people? How could they somehow get fans from all over the Bay Area into hockey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA_Champion Posted August 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Why do so many of you like Milwaukee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathradio Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Why do so many of you like Milwaukee? How much of a hockey market is it? There is kids' hockey all over the place, plus Wisconsin produced a few good hockey players (Pavelski, Kessel, and others) The only real competition in Milwaukee is NBA because MLB has little overlap over a hockey season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EHIW Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Well, look at the size of California and its population. Its as big as 4 or 5 of the eastern seaboard states. So I dont think 3 teams there is unreasonable (If NY can have 3 teams in such close proximity) The Sabres are practically Ontario's third team the fact that both national anthems are played before every Sabres match says it all really, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlHabsFan Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 How much of a hockey market is it? There is kids' hockey all over the place, plus Wisconsin produced a few good hockey players (Pavelski, Kessel, and others) The only real competition in Milwaukee is NBA because MLB has little overlap over a hockey season. I still think Wisconsin is too big of a football state to move too much into hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteenIsThaFuture Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 The Badgers are usually near the top of the college hockey attendance boards. Same for the AHL Milwaukee Admirals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathradio Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 The Sabres are practically Ontario's third team the fact that both national anthems are played before every Sabres match says it all really, Maybe it's because 20% of the Sabres' audience actually come from Ontario... more so when they themselves play the Leafs. This is when some of the U.S.-based season ticket holders actually rent their season tickets to Leaf fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leafs_rock_go_mccabe Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Well, look at the size of California and its population. Its as big as 4 or 5 of the eastern seaboard states. So I dont think 3 teams there is unreasonable (If NY can have 3 teams in such close proximity) That's a good point. How are the Islanders managing? It seems that New Jersey and the New York Islanders always have attendance issues. I wonder if it weren't for NJ constantly making the post-season would they also be in money trouble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathradio Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 That's a good point. How are the Islanders managing? It seems that New Jersey and the New York Islanders always have attendance issues. I wonder if it weren't for NJ constantly making the post-season would they also be in money trouble? Are there people who would watch the Devils play if the Islanders were relocated to, say, Quebec City? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29Dryden29 Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Add QC Winterpeg Hamilton Delete Tampa PHX Atlanta Nashville (sorry preds fans) I was there for the HABS game and when the barn has that many empty seats for an original six team there is a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostyHAWK Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Those would be horrible choices. Take the kings from Los Angelas and move them to Kentucky? Not really a hot bed of hockey. Kansas City and Seattle dont have the money. Look at their baseball/footbal teams. And Milwaukee is a Brewers/Bucks/Packers town. I cant see hockey really sprouting there either. Now Miami for a team is horrible. I dont know how they got a team, and I dont really picture a 90% hispanic area really being into hockey at all. They are totally catering to the snowbird crowd and transplants. Tampa is the oddball of the south where hockey seems to work (Atlanta is failing as bad as when the Flames were there. Thats not a hockey city either. The population there is strongly into their Falcons, Hawks & Braves. As well as the college football Bulldogs) sending them to louisville could be a bad idea but the only other option is to shrink the league, i rather see if cites (albeit not exactly showing interest NOW) would somewhat show interest if a team were to show up, kansas city already wants a team and seattle (despite having no money as you say) is a potential hockey hotspot. baseball/football teams thrive in warm summer areas, since seattle is cold and damp like vancouver, hockey seems like a decent choice for their city. if you have any better cities, feel free to reply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlHabsFan Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Are there people who would watch the Devils play if the Islanders were relocated to, say, Quebec City? Thing is, if any of the 3 teams left, you wouldnt see many transfer to the other 2 teams. You would see some, but not many. And it would be worse for the islanders/Devils. I think the distance is enough that if either left, almost none would transfer. Some might become Ranger fans, strictly to be a fan of a local team, but thats it. Add QC Winterpeg Hamilton Delete Tampa PHX Atlanta Nashville (sorry preds fans) I was there for the HABS game and when the barn has that many empty seats for an original six team there is a problem. Losing Tampa would be a major mistake. Unlike Atlanta (and I am not sure on the other 2), hockey has gotten a strong foot hold here in the Bay area. And when the team has good ownership and management, like it seems to have now and like it had under former owner William Davidson, the forum is packed. Not just with snow birds, but locals. Now when you have the abominations we had for owners in between, then you get teams that end up fighting for first round picks and crappy attendance. And I can tell you first hand, there is excitement about this year's Lightning team. Meanwhile, I think the panthers are deciding who to go with when they get the first or 2nd overall pick next summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlHabsFan Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 sending them to louisville could be a bad idea but the only other option is to shrink the league, i rather see if cites (albeit not exactly showing interest NOW) would somewhat show interest if a team were to show up, kansas city already wants a team and seattle (despite having no money as you say) is a potential hockey hotspot. baseball/football teams thrive in warm summer areas, since seattle is cold and damp like vancouver, hockey seems like a decent choice for their city. if you have any better cities, feel free to reply Moving for moving's sake isnt much better. What happens if after 5-6 years, it doesnt take off? Move them again? And look at the owners of the Mariners and Royals. Their biggest complaint is that because they are a small market, that they cant compete for Free Agents. While teams from California and New York can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostyHAWK Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Moving for moving's sake isnt much better. What happens if after 5-6 years, it doesnt take off? Move them again? And look at the owners of the Mariners and Royals. Their biggest complaint is that because they are a small market, that they cant compete for Free Agents. While teams from California and New York can. are we in the old nhl or the new nhl now? the islanders ar elosing HEAPS of money and the kings, well... i dont like them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.