Teams That Should Relocate/Relocation Destinations

[FGM13]

Why the Canes? Sure, they suck right now, but they have a pretty damn good fanbase for a Southern NHL team (remember the ASG they hosted) and they won a Cup.

I don't believe their fanbase is very strong at all.

Plus their Cup wasn't exactly hard to get. They barely beat Chris Pronger and a bunch of gritty guys who managed to come up in the clutch.

[mcj882000]

IMO this 8-year old Onion article sums up the Hurricanes' fanbase nicely:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/carolina-residents-confused-terrified-as-victoriou,1989/

[bosrs1]

This is a pretty simple thread. List teams that should relocate and places for them to relocate to.

Hard Mode: no Coyotes or Panthers.

Coyotes from Phoenix... everyone else stay where they are. Doesn't matter where the Coyotes go, but they should never have been put in Glendale.

[bosrs1]

Like Gothamite, I hate advocating relocation. I grew up with the North Stars and I hated losing 'em. So I am not saying I want any of this to happen but maybe it ought to.

As far as what teams should be looking to move now, I don't think I'm going to say anything that isn't going to be mentioned by somebody else. The Rays at the very least need to get out of St. Pete. The A's would probably be better served moving to a better area in NoCal. No clue why they aren't taking a more of a look at Sacramento. The Coyotes. Probably both Oakland and Jacksonville considering the other markets out there. NBA I think is probably the most set even though that's where you've had the most recent amount of movement. Seattle would be the most obvious choice, but even with teams like Minnesota and Milwaukee, I think their lack of popularity is more of a result of bad ownership then being in a bad market.

The A's aren't looking at Sac because there's no corporate base in Sacramento. It's a government town. No one to buy your suites, and no one to buy your luxury seats. They'd be better served staying put in Oakland if they can't get to San Jose. Which appears to be their plan B once the Raiders finally bolt to San Antonio or LA.

[The_Admiral]

cherished Raleigh establishments such as Brother's Pizza, Snoopy's Hot Dogs, and the Waffle House

[pmoehrin]

Like Gothamite, I hate advocating relocation. I grew up with the North Stars and I hated losing 'em. So I am not saying I want any of this to happen but maybe it ought to.

As far as what teams should be looking to move now, I don't think I'm going to say anything that isn't going to be mentioned by somebody else. The Rays at the very least need to get out of St. Pete. The A's would probably be better served moving to a better area in NoCal. No clue why they aren't taking a more of a look at Sacramento. The Coyotes. Probably both Oakland and Jacksonville considering the other markets out there. NBA I think is probably the most set even though that's where you've had the most recent amount of movement. Seattle would be the most obvious choice, but even with teams like Minnesota and Milwaukee, I think their lack of popularity is more of a result of bad ownership then being in a bad market.

The A's aren't looking at Sac because there's no corporate base in Sacramento. It's a government town. No one to buy your suites, and no one to buy your luxury seats. They'd be better served staying put in Oakland if they can't get to San Jose. Which appears to be their plan B once the Raiders finally bolt to San Antonio or LA.

I get that but its also a city that's been growing at a pretty fast rate as well. It will probably hit the 500k mark in another year or two if it isn't there already. That figure will probably keep going up at least for the foreseeable future as well.

Obviously there's a lot more money in San Jose and the surrounding Bay Area, and I would prefer to stay there as well if I were the A's. But considering all the issues the A's have had with trying to do that, I don't think Sacramento should be viewed as chop liver.

As far as the Hurricanes go, I was in North Carolina when they were making their first Cup run and I've never seen a fan base less interested in a team that was doing well. There were probably as many former Whaler fans excited over the Hurricanes first cup win as there were 'Canes fans.

To put in an another way the of people from Luxembourg I've met in my life outnumber the number of Hurricane fans I've met, and I've never even been to Europe.

[Unocal]

Atlanta Hawks. That team deserves a better fanbase. They've won 11 of 12, but you wouldn't know it by the empty seats.

[DS729]

Atlanta Hawks. That team deserves a better fanbase. They've won 11 of 12, but you wouldn't know it by the empty seats.

There are bigger fish to fry in the NBA than the Atlanta Hawks. It may not be big, but they've clung to that market for about 40 years, they've never been a "packed house" team. Plus, outside of Seattle there's no market that's going to be certainly better than what they already have. And as I said, bigger fish to fry.

[FiddySicks]

Like Gothamite, I hate advocating relocation. I grew up with the North Stars and I hated losing 'em. So I am not saying I want any of this to happen but maybe it ought to.

As far as what teams should be looking to move now, I don't think I'm going to say anything that isn't going to be mentioned by somebody else. The Rays at the very least need to get out of St. Pete. The A's would probably be better served moving to a better area in NoCal. No clue why they aren't taking a more of a look at Sacramento. The Coyotes. Probably both Oakland and Jacksonville considering the other markets out there. NBA I think is probably the most set even though that's where you've had the most recent amount of movement. Seattle would be the most obvious choice, but even with teams like Minnesota and Milwaukee, I think their lack of popularity is more of a result of bad ownership then being in a bad market.

The A's aren't looking at Sac because there's no corporate base in Sacramento. It's a government town. No one to buy your suites, and no one to buy your luxury seats. They'd be better served staying put in Oakland if they can't get to San Jose. Which appears to be their plan B once the Raiders finally bolt to San Antonio or LA.

I get that but its also a city that's been growing at a pretty fast rate as well. It will probably hit the 500k mark in another year or two if it isn't there already. That figure will probably keep going up at least for the foreseeable future as well.

Obviously there's a lot more money in San Jose and the surrounding Bay Area, and I would prefer to stay there as well if I were the A's. But considering all the issues the A's have had with trying to do that, I don't think Sacramento should be viewed as chop liver.

I've pretty much been saying this for years, but IMO Sacramento is a much better option than bosrs1 gives it credit for. It's been one of the fastest growing cities in the state for quite some time now. One thing about government towns is that the risk of it going belly up is slim to none. I'm not saying San Jose is really that risky of a proposition, because the tech market is so strong and San Jose is so big, but there are too many obstacles for the A's at this moment. The A's may end up moving to Sacramento because even though it's not a totally desirable option for them, it may be the only option.

[ninersdd]

With the Kings getting a new arena, and the city is pushing hard for a new MLS team and stadium, you would wonder if the market would be tapped out at the moment.

[BBTV]

MLB: Tampa Bay Rays. For all the reasons Gothamite listed above...I think Montreal would be an ideal place, since the movement to bring baseball back is rising, and they wouldn't even have to leave the AL East (now the Pearson Cup can be a division rivalry).

NFL: Chargers & Raiders...both should go to LA for obvious reasons. Problem is, one would have to move to the NFC and one NFC team would have to move to the AFC (I doubt the league wants two teams in the same division in the same city)

NHL: Florida Panthers to Quebec City. I've finally accepted that the Coyotes are going nowhere, and the Panthers will be a "scapegoat" team that gets moved to a destination Canadian city much like the Thrashers did. (Hey, at least it'd be better than the Blue Jackets moving-Ohio deserves at least one team in EVERY major league)

NBA: None really...the Bucks I would have said before, but they seem to be turning the corner. I think they'll expand to 32 teams and be done with it for good after that.

They should just look at the NBA, LA makes it work just fine for the Clippers and Lakers.

Totally different. TV contracts are divided up by conference (NFC on Fox, AFC on CBS) so there's no way Fox is going to let CBS get both teams playing in the #2 market. NBA you're dealing with local TV for the most part so it's (literally) a whole different ballgame.

They could make it work by having the "LA Exception", and designate one of the teams a NFC team for TV contract purposes only (and then designate some NFC team an AFC team in return.)

[pmoehrin]

Atlanta Hawks. That team deserves a better fanbase. They've won 11 of 12, but you wouldn't know it by the empty seats.

While I don't agree with the idea of the Hawks moving, I do get whete your coming from and it's been a complete mystery to me as to why the Hawks aren't more popular.

That city is big enough and they've been there long enough to where they should have a very established fan base by now. And it just isn't there.

Then again none of the Atlanta teams draw well except for the Braves and that's only been the case since '91. Prior to that one of if not the worst fanbase in NL. Two NHL teams have come and gone.

With the exception of the NFL, the South just generally does not seem interested in pro sports.

As for Sacramento, again I'm not trying to argue it's better then San Jose or even Fremont. Just pointing out the problems the A's have with trying to stay in the Bay Area and the difficulty the Giants, Warriors, 49ers and Raiders have all had to varying degress in building a new stadium/arena. The Giants in particular came that close from joining that list I posted earlier of teams that should have stayed put.

I think a lot has to do with the Bay Area playing hard ball in their negations. The city knows any land worthwhile building a stadium is worth money with or without a stadium on it. And even if a team leaves, give it five years and least one other team will be begging to go there.

The A's might be able to get a few hundred mill knocked off their construction bill by moving to Sacramento. That might be enough to justify less money in gate revenues. And I'm counting luxury suite revenue as gate revenue. There's a good possibility it may not as well. But I would at least look into the question, and I don't think the A's have.

[dbadefense1990]

Raiders/Rams. Move one (or both) to LA.

I have more faith in a Stanley Cup Final between the Oilers and Panthers than the NFL ever returning to SoCal.

[OldRamsFan]

I want the Rams to move - to Oklahoma City or San Antonio.

[Mac the Knife]

The Whalers to Carolina. Again much like Coyotes. Not that Hartford was ever that great, but the citizens of Raleigh could by in large give less then a crap about the Hurricanes. The Whalers were also set up perfectly for some great regional rivalries if and when they were good. I don't quite see Hurricanes/Caps ever being at the level that Whalers/Bruins or Whalers/Rangers could have potentially been.

Those are the five I can think of where I think you would say in hindsight it was a bad idea at the time. Every other move I think has at least proven itself to be a lateral one, even amongst the more controversial ones..

Why the Canes? Sure, they suck right now, but they have a pretty damn good fanbase for a Southern NHL team (remember the ASG they hosted) and they won a Cup.

I don't believe their fanbase is very strong at all.

cherished Raleigh establishments such as Brother's Pizza, Snoopy's Hot Dogs, and the Waffle House

When I saw this thread had been created, I simply knew there'd be a few hammerheads here decrying the Hartford Whalers relocation to Raleigh. I'm not a homer by nature, but please, allow me to retort...

- The Whalers were reportedly losing millions of dollars in Hartford, with no prospects of staying in the area. They were going, either to Raleigh or Columbus. As much as I hate franchise relocations, it's a rare case where I tell people "let it go."

- The Carolina Hurricanes make money, win or lose, thanks to the deals they have. Unfortunately once they reached a certain point, they barely bothered to promote, are kinda-sorta tied to the corporate community, but even with the cup win never have made a real effort to endear the team to fans. Despite this, they still somehow put asses in the seats. The fan base is rabid when they win (which hasn't happened in years) but it's not given anywhere near the credit it should based on the team's performance since the cup win. Stop dissin' the fans.

- You mean Milton's Pizza. Screw Snoopy's and their teabagger ownership. The Waffle House isn't local. Aim higher next time you want to take a shot.

All that said, the Hurricanes probably aren't going to be here but another 10-15 years, tops. The arena won't hold up to future NHL standards, and there's no way in hell Raleigh will go the way of Atlanta, pissing away money on replacing perfectly usable facilities.

[pmoehrin]

The Whalers to Carolina. Again much like Coyotes. Not that Hartford was ever that great, but the citizens of Raleigh could by in large give less then a crap about the Hurricanes. The Whalers were also set up perfectly for some great regional rivalries if and when they were good. I don't quite see Hurricanes/Caps ever being at the level that Whalers/Bruins or Whalers/Rangers could have potentially been.

Those are the five I can think of where I think you would say in hindsight it was a bad idea at the time. Every other move I think has at least proven itself to be a lateral one, even amongst the more controversial ones..

Why the Canes? Sure, they suck right now, but they have a pretty damn good fanbase for a Southern NHL team (remember the ASG they hosted) and they won a Cup.

I don't believe their fanbase is very strong at all.

cherished Raleigh establishments such as Brother's Pizza, Snoopy's Hot Dogs, and the Waffle House

When I saw this thread had been created, I simply knew there'd be a few hammerheads here decrying the Hartford Whalers relocation to Raleigh. I'm not a homer by nature, but please, allow me to retort...

- The Whalers were reportedly losing millions of dollars in Hartford, with no prospects of staying in the area. They were going, either to Raleigh or Columbus. As much as I hate franchise relocations, it's a rare case where I tell people "let it go."

- The Carolina Hurricanes make money, win or lose, thanks to the deals they have. Unfortunately once they reached a certain point, they barely bothered to promote, are kinda-sorta tied to the corporate community, but even with the cup win never have made a real effort to endear the team to fans. Despite this, they still somehow put asses in the seats. The fan base is rabid when they win (which hasn't happened in years) but it's not given anywhere near the credit it should based on the team's performance since the cup win. Stop dissin' the fans.

- You mean Milton's Pizza. Screw Snoopy's and their teabagger ownership. The Waffle House isn't local. Aim higher next time you want to take a shot.

All that said, the Hurricanes probably aren't going to be here but another 10-15 years, tops. The arena won't hold up to future NHL standards, and there's no way in hell Raleigh will go the way of Atlanta, pissing away money on replacing perfectly usable facilities.

First of all, a lot of passion I'm sensing from that post. If there were more people in Carolina who felt that way when the question of losing the team came up, don't think we would be having this conversation.

Again as has been stated earlier, its devastating to lose a franchise your a fan of. If there's more then one person showing up to the game, that means there's at least some fans out there.

With the Whalers the fact that people haven't "let it go" almost 20 years after they left should tell how much of a fan base that team actually had. That name still means something to a lot of people.

I also know the team claimed they were losing millions and there may be some truth to that. But how many teams have we all heard a sports team complain about losing money? You also bring up the issues with ownership as one of the reasons for the Hurricanes failing to draw better. Who do you think was the owner of the Whalers? Its the same guy, Peter Karmanos. Ask former Whaler fans about the season ticket packages you had to buy after he took over the team.

But ownership is always a factor in any team deciding to leave. Bud Adams, Jeffrey Loria, Robert Irsay, Art Modell, George Shinn. Can't tell me those guys through in some cases just sheer incompetence didn't play a very heavy hand in their teams leaving.

Despite all that, the only reason the Whalers left is because Hartford wouldn't build them a new arena. Had that happened, they would still be there. No question about it.

You might be right in claiming that Hurricane get a little too much slack because their team came at the expense of another and its not right, because the fans of Carolina should not be at fault in any way for the Whalers leaving and anyone who thinks they are is mistaken. But in some sense its almost like losing a girlfriend/boyfriend. If he or she is leaving you for some guy or girl who's better looking and makes more money, you can understand it. But if he or she shows up with some big fat poor slob with a complete lack of personality, you have to wonder what's going through their head.

I think its a pretty similar deal here. You can say that D.C. is a better baseball market then Montreal, or that Denver is a better place for an NHL team then Quebec City, or that OKC has proven itself to be at least as supportive of a market as Seattle was. And I think that takes some of the sting out. But I don't think anyone outside of Carolina is looking at Raleigh as being a just hands down better place for an NHL team then Hartford. For any true Whaler fan, I don't see how that can't eat at you.

As much as I disagree with your post I do appreciate it, because I can sense the place where its coming from and again if there were more Hurricane fans that felt as strongly as that, this conversation wouldn't be happening. I just don't see it.

[bosrs1]

Like Gothamite, I hate advocating relocation. I grew up with the North Stars and I hated losing 'em. So I am not saying I want any of this to happen but maybe it ought to.

As far as what teams should be looking to move now, I don't think I'm going to say anything that isn't going to be mentioned by somebody else. The Rays at the very least need to get out of St. Pete. The A's would probably be better served moving to a better area in NoCal. No clue why they aren't taking a more of a look at Sacramento. The Coyotes. Probably both Oakland and Jacksonville considering the other markets out there. NBA I think is probably the most set even though that's where you've had the most recent amount of movement. Seattle would be the most obvious choice, but even with teams like Minnesota and Milwaukee, I think their lack of popularity is more of a result of bad ownership then being in a bad market.

The A's aren't looking at Sac because there's no corporate base in Sacramento. It's a government town. No one to buy your suites, and no one to buy your luxury seats. They'd be better served staying put in Oakland if they can't get to San Jose. Which appears to be their plan B once the Raiders finally bolt to San Antonio or LA.

I get that but its also a city that's been growing at a pretty fast rate as well. It will probably hit the 500k mark in another year or two if it isn't there already. That figure will probably keep going up at least for the foreseeable future as well.

Obviously there's a lot more money in San Jose and the surrounding Bay Area, and I would prefer to stay there as well if I were the A's. But considering all the issues the A's have had with trying to do that, I don't think Sacramento should be viewed as chop liver.

I've pretty much been saying this for years, but IMO Sacramento is a much better option than bosrs1 gives it credit for. It's been one of the fastest growing cities in the state for quite some time now. One thing about government towns is that the risk of it going belly up is slim to none. I'm not saying San Jose is really that risky of a proposition, because the tech market is so strong and San Jose is so big, but there are too many obstacles for the A's at this moment. The A's may end up moving to Sacramento because even though it's not a totally desirable option for them, it may be the only option.

Except it's not. Oakland is actually a viable option. And Wolff has presented a plan to the city and Alameda county that works financially for him. It's not glamorous, being that its at the Coliseum site. But it gets the job done and would be a huge upgrade. And despite itself Oakland is also on the rise again, becoming San Francisco east. And that's in a region that was already 10x larger than Sac.

Not saying Sac is chopped liver, but it's just not viable as an MLB market. TV market is too small when compared to what the A's have now, no public funding with the Kings sucking up what little there is, and no corporate base which precludes as much private funding as Wolff will need. He'll be far better served staying put in Oakland if the San Jose move doesn't come about, which is exactly why he's positioning the team that way.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Like Gothamite, I hate advocating relocation. I grew up with the North Stars and I hated losing 'em. So I am not saying I want any of this to happen but maybe it ought to.

The main reason teams seem to leave is because of a lack of a good stadium/arena, but I think there's a been a few teams over the years that you could argue shot themselves in the foot in the long run by leaving, or at least should have probably moved somewhere else.

The Stars are a team that I think could be argued as one. They've done well in Dallas, but they best they can ever hope for in Dallas is to be the third most popular team in the city. Meanwhile the Wild have drawn since day one of existence, even though as a franchise they still haven't done much of anything. Can only imagine how popular they would be if they were actually good. That '99 Cup winning team would have probably been treated like gods had they won it in Minnesota.

The Raiders going back to Oakland. Another move I would have to say not really sure what was to be gained long term. I get the stadium issue, but its not like the Raiders moved into a World Class facility up in Oakland. They would have had the LA market all to themselves and would probably be one of the richest franchises in the NFL at this point instead of being at the bottom. Same argument I guess could be made for the Rams, but the Rams at least were coming into a new facility.

The Oilers going to Tennessee. Kind of the same boat as the Stars. Why would you leave a football hot bead to go to what's proven to be a bottom tier NFL market in Nashville? Well when everyone in the city hates the owner and he's not selling the team, that tends to be a deal breaker. I have no doubt that Adams could have easily found a buyer to keep the team in Houston if he wanted to.

The Jets moving to Arizona. Again not that Winnipeg was ever that great of a market, but Phoenix has just been flat out awful almost from day one. If every sports league fought as hard to keep teams from relocating as the NHL has to keep the Coyotes in Phoenix, the St. Louis Browns would still be around.

The Whalers to Carolina. Again much like Coyotes. Not that Hartford was ever that great, but the citizens of Raleigh could by in large give less then a crap about the Hurricanes. The Whalers were also set up perfectly for some great regional rivalries if and when they were good. I don't quite see Hurricanes/Caps ever being at the level that Whalers/Bruins or Whalers/Rangers could have potentially been.

Those are the five I can think of where I think you would say in hindsight it was a bad idea at the time. Every other move I think has at least proven itself to be a lateral one, even amongst the more controversial ones. The Colts have done pretty well for themselves in Indy. Ravens have drawn consistently well in Baltimore. As big as the Dodgers would probably be right now if they had stayed in Brooklyn, they can't complain about what they've done in LA.

As far as what teams should be looking to move now, I don't think I'm going to say anything that isn't going to be mentioned by somebody else. The Rays at the very least need to get out of St. Pete. The A's would probably be better served moving to a better area in NoCal. No clue why they aren't taking a more of a look at Sacramento. The Coyotes. Probably both Oakland and Jacksonville considering the other markets out there. NBA I think is probably the most set even though that's where you've had the most recent amount of movement. Seattle would be the most obvious choice, but even with teams like Minnesota and Milwaukee, I think their lack of popularity is more of a result of bad ownership then being in a bad market.

I figured the way this post was going, the Hornets to New Orleans would be included.

Seems to fit the pattern. Charlotte was successful at the gate early, owner became hated, team moved to market that's superiority was questionable at best, the league came back to the original city quickly... and the name even was restored.

[crashcarson15]

MLB: Tampa Bay Rays. For all the reasons Gothamite listed above...I think Montreal would be an ideal place, since the movement to bring baseball back is rising, and they wouldn't even have to leave the AL East (now the Pearson Cup can be a division rivalry).

NFL: Chargers & Raiders...both should go to LA for obvious reasons. Problem is, one would have to move to the NFC and one NFC team would have to move to the AFC (I doubt the league wants two teams in the same division in the same city)

NHL: Florida Panthers to Quebec City. I've finally accepted that the Coyotes are going nowhere, and the Panthers will be a "scapegoat" team that gets moved to a destination Canadian city much like the Thrashers did. (Hey, at least it'd be better than the Blue Jackets moving-Ohio deserves at least one team in EVERY major league)

NBA: None really...the Bucks I would have said before, but they seem to be turning the corner. I think they'll expand to 32 teams and be done with it for good after that.

They should just look at the NBA, LA makes it work just fine for the Clippers and Lakers.

Totally different. TV contracts are divided up by conference (NFC on Fox, AFC on CBS) so there's no way Fox is going to let CBS get both teams playing in the #2 market. NBA you're dealing with local TV for the most part so it's (literally) a whole different ballgame.

They could make it work by having the "LA Exception", and designate one of the teams a NFC team for TV contract purposes only (and then designate some NFC team an AFC team in return.)

I was going to mention this — is the "flexing" AFC or NFC games to the other network the precursor to only one team being in the LA market down the road and not two? Could just the Raiders or just the Rams make the move, with half of their intra-conference games being "flexed" each year?

[Gothamite]

Not sure that makes sense, as it would give one package 15 1/2 teams and the other 14 1/2.

If you're talking about designating the Rams, say, an AFC team for TV rights only, what AFC team would be taken away from that television package to compensate?

Occam's razor indicates instead that we're talking about one team from each conference in the second-biggest metropolitan area in the country. Once the "no stadium" issue is resolved for one, a second will soon follow.