Jump to content

Teams That Should Relocate/Relocation Destinations


JerseyJimmy

Recommended Posts

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.

The 1/2 game scenario is just if only one team moves and you split the LA games between networks yes? You'd take an AFC team with roughly the same ratings as the Rams - I have no idea, but a team like the Titans maybe.

It could work for a season, but the only way is viable long term is with two teams. The point of my post was that conferences wouldn't have to be realigned if two AFC teams moved, though it sure would be a lot easier if it was one and one. I guess if two AFC teams moved an the Chargers were an "nfc" TV team, you'd find a NFC team with roughly the same numbers as them and make that an AFCTV team.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

However, the recession took a huge toll on Sacramento. As a government town we took the brunt of the furloughs that impacted the majority of the state workforce. Foreclosures in the region were at an all time high city and county budget cuts were massive and still have not fully recovered. The pay for state employees is only now starting to equal the level it was back in 2007 and we still have a long way to go. So while we didn't go "belly up" we came about as close as you can get without going over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The 1/2 game scenario is just if only one team moves and you split the LA games between networks yes? You'd take an AFC team with roughly the same ratings as the Rams - I have no idea, but a team like the Titans maybe.

It could work for a season, but the only way is viable long term is with two teams. The point of my post was that conferences wouldn't have to be realigned if two AFC teams moved, though it sure would be a lot easier if it was one and one. I guess if two AFC teams moved an the Chargers were an "nfc" TV team, you'd find a NFC team with roughly the same numbers as them and make that an AFCTV team.

Sounds too complicated. Besides, I'd be surprised if metro Nashville had the same number of television viewers as Los Angeles.

More likely they'd realign that second franchise, switching an NFC team over to the AFC in its place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLB: For the Rays, anywhere would be better than Tampa Bay. For the Athletics, I'm not in the loop about the Athletics' situation. Is Oakland falling apart or bouncing back as a city?

NFL: Definitely the Rams back to Los Angeles. St Louis has always been, and will always be a baseball town. Raiders to San Antonio, except with a new name, logo, colors since the Raiders' bad boy image wouldn't catch on over there. Chargers are in a tough spot. Has Portland ever been talked about? Would it hurt to try Portland?

NBA: Since Sacramento has made good progress keeping the Kings in town, who is left for Seattle to try to lure? Are the new Bucks' owners going to keep the Bucks in Milwaukee? If the NBA were to expand to 32 teams, who would join with Seattle? Kansas City? Vancouver? Pittsburgh?

NHL: Coyotes and Panthers to Seattle and Quebec respectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a location not many have thought of for relocation and/or expansion but what about Austin TX? Too soon for them to be considered? I remember seeing something where Austin has recently become one of America's 10 biggest cities and has grown by a little over 8% from last year. I figure it is probably too soon, but I think Austin will be a legit relocation topic within the next few years

@loganaweaver - Twitter / @loganaweaver - Instagram / Nike Vapor Untouchable Football Template  / Logan's Logos

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a location not many have thought of for relocation and/or expansion but what about Austin TX? Too soon for them to be considered? I remember seeing something where Austin has recently become one of America's 10 biggest cities and has grown by a little over 8% from last year. I figure it is probably too soon, but I think Austin will be a legit relocation topic within the next few years

Big city but still not much of a metro area.

That being said sometime in the next 30 years a pro sports team will be there. The market is up and coming and once San Antonio builds up some more that's going to be the next Texas city to keep an eye on.

With regards to the Charlotte comment from earlier, five years ago I would have felt that way. Now though I'm looking at that move more as a wash.

Even before Shinn became a pariah, the new car smell of the team was wearing off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The 1/2 game scenario is just if only one team moves and you split the LA games between networks yes? You'd take an AFC team with roughly the same ratings as the Rams - I have no idea, but a team like the Titans maybe.

It could work for a season, but the only way is viable long term is with two teams. The point of my post was that conferences wouldn't have to be realigned if two AFC teams moved, though it sure would be a lot easier if it was one and one. I guess if two AFC teams moved an the Chargers were an "nfc" TV team, you'd find a NFC team with roughly the same numbers as them and make that an AFCTV team.

Sounds too complicated. Besides, I'd be surprised if metro Nashville had the same number of television viewers as Los Angeles.

More likely they'd realign that second franchise, switching an NFC team over to the AFC in its place.

I guess what I'm saying is if just the Rams move, then Fox is gaining LA and losing STL. If you split LA between the networks, fox is really only out what would have been STL for those 8 games, so you wouldn't have to find a team with as much viewership as LA to replace that half-season of games. I'm looking at it as LA being an unexpected bonus to both networks, so they should be happy with half of a season each.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLB: The Rays to Montreal/unidentified East Coast location, for many of the reasons stated above. I'd like it if they built a new place in Tampa Bay (with a better location), but I doubt that will happen.

NBA: No moves, but most likely expansion to 32 at some point (the Warriors will hopefully dump the "Golden State" name when they get to the new arena, if that counts as relocation).

NFL: Rams/Raiders to Los Angeles, again for reasons stated.

NHL: Coyotes/Panthers to Seattle/Quebec City, for previously stated reasons. Also, I think the Sharks may try to move to the new Warriors arena, even if it isn't designed with hockey in mind (because the only moves their management makes is moves that look like improvements and are portrayed as such, but generally aren't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The fan base is here for the Hawks. (And attendance is up this year, for what it's worth)

The problem is that there was a lot of losing and a bumbling ownership. And yeah, they've been here for nearly 50 years, but have never reached the conference semifinals since being in Atlanta.

The other problem is that no one's from Atlanta, it seems. A majority of people have moved here from wherever. They keep their loyalties to their team, and the Hawks haven't given a product to be "must see" since Dominique left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They haven't won a playoff series in Atlanta? Wow.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Passion? No. Just frustration with people who are reflexively dismissive of Raleigh as a viable professional sports market based on the performance of the Karmanos' controlled Carolina Hurricanes. I don't fault Whaler fans for their scorn by any means; as a fan of the original Cleveland Browns to this day I refer to the relocated franchise as the "Baltimore Cravens," and reprehensible as it may seem saw the video of the guy who hurled urine at Art Modell's masoleum and thought, "Not graceful, but understandable." When it comes to sports I'm about as dispassionate as it gets (thanks to Modell's shenanigans), and look at situations from a business-first perspective.

Our situation in Raleigh is much like those of many other markets - with proper leadership at the top and/or a semi-competitive team on the ice/court/field, it'll at least survive. With two of the three for a sustained period, you thrive and people stop targeting you in their mental relocation lists. With all three, it's not even a question. We've never gone beyond one of the three, but despite this the team draws well, no one disputes that it makes money, and the NHL points to it as a success of the southern expansion. But among fans, every franchise south of Washington or east of Los Angeles is by default a failure; and it just ain't so.

Adams and Irsay both reached points where they had stadia which rendered their teams vulnerable. Adams found an out quickly, while Irsay's alcoholism made the Colts relocation a fiasco. Modell was not only alcoholic but incompetent and grossly underfinanced, and should've been eased out as the Browns owner in the early 1980's when his cracks started to appear. I can't speak to Shinn beyond thinking he should've sold rather than relocate.

If someone wants to hurl an insult Raleigh's way because they were a Whalers fan? That's understandable to me, and if anything you'll get an emphatic, yet empathetic, response from me. But the argument that Raleigh's not a market suitable for professional sports is one I'll refute, just as emphatically.

Some markets are unquestionably better than others in one sport or another: owning the sole team in Los Angeles obviously trumps owning a franchise in Minneapolis. But I'm not comparing markets. I don't claim Raleigh is a better market than Hartford for hockey, or that had they moved there instead Columbus would have been. What I will say is that there's no one looking at the Columbus Blue Jackets and saying "relocate them," "Columbus isn't a good hockey market," or whatever. Raleigh, however, because it's seen as part of Gary Bettman's "southern expansion" strategy, is viewed with a jaundiced eye - and despite that perception being refuted by the empirical evidence, there are still chuckleheads out there who when the topic arises will ignorantly claim, "Raleigh can go!"

nav-logo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The 1/2 game scenario is just if only one team moves and you split the LA games between networks yes? You'd take an AFC team with roughly the same ratings as the Rams - I have no idea, but a team like the Titans maybe.

It could work for a season, but the only way is viable long term is with two teams. The point of my post was that conferences wouldn't have to be realigned if two AFC teams moved, though it sure would be a lot easier if it was one and one. I guess if two AFC teams moved an the Chargers were an "nfc" TV team, you'd find a NFC team with roughly the same numbers as them and make that an AFCTV team.

Sounds too complicated. Besides, I'd be surprised if metro Nashville had the same number of television viewers as Los Angeles.

More likely they'd realign that second franchise, switching an NFC team over to the AFC in its place.

Truth is, it's already more complicated than the split we grew up with. Besides the Thursday games and Sunday flexibility, a Sunday afternoon Bears-Vikings game was on CBS this year (emphasis mine :) ). I wonder if what Fox got in return was even value for the Chicago market.

I think every network could get enough of a piece of a one-team L.A. to be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL's solution regarding television, divisional alignments, etc. is solvable not by divisional realignment, but a change in the way the TV contracts are structured which would provide a 'win-win' for all involved. It might require a little more nimbleness on the parts of the networks, but imagine...

The NFL, CBS, NBC, Fox and ESPN reps gather together just before the release of each year's NFL schedule. They run through each week, conducting in essence a draft for which of the games they want as their national game(s). No AFC games are exclusively those of CBS, no NFC games exclusively those of Fox.

In weeks where one network airs a single game but the other has a doubleheader (CBS/Fox), the network airing the single game gets "the first pick," while the doubleheader partner makes the second selection. The third goes to NBC for Sunday night. The fourth goes to ESPN for Monday night. The fifth is made by the doubleheader partner to complete the Sunday slate. If the NFL wants to continue with Thursday nights, that TV partner gets to pick sixth and last. Now...

Up to 15 days prior to air, the network who chose first for that week can change to any other game, provided another network hasn't already selected it. So if some misguided CBS hack picks a Jags-Titans matchup in April as its 1pm game, but by Week 7 it's obvious that a Week 10 Bengals-Texans game will pull a broader national audience? It can make the switch. Once that change is made, the other Sunday partner would have the option of replacing its 1pm game with the Jags-Titans, or keep its previous selection. If not chosen then, this "dropped game" (or a game which would be subsequently dropped to pick this one up) would be made available for selection by the next partner on the list (NBC for Sunday Night, ESPN for MNF, etc.)

nav-logo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I will say is that there's no one looking at the Columbus Blue Jackets and saying "relocate them," "Columbus isn't a good hockey market," or whatever. Raleigh, however, because it's seen as part of Gary Bettman's "southern expansion" strategy, is viewed with a jaundiced eye - and despite that perception being refuted by the empirical evidence, there are still chuckleheads out there who when the topic arises will ignorantly claim, "Raleigh can go!"

This isn't entirely true. When the Blue Jackets were financially on the ropes a few years ago, there was plenty of talk about how the league could stand to sub out Columbus for a better market. Now that the Ohio government bailed them out and twinned their arena with Ohio State's near-identical arena down the street, they're not going anywhere, but Columbus is a perfect example of an NHL market that the league doesn't need but whatever you can get out of it is nice. Raleigh is the same way, Hartford would be the same way, but I'd give Columbus a higher ceiling than Raleigh, and Hartford a higher ceiling than both.

We've never gone beyond one of the three, but despite this the team draws well, no one disputes that it makes money

Are these true? The Hurricanes have had poor attendance in at least the last four years that I've had access to their telecasts. And given that there's nominally a dispute over whether the Chicago Blackhawks make money, I have trouble believing the Hurricanes are unarguably raking it in. In fact, Karmanos has been selling off pieces of the team recently and trying to sell even more (with the proviso that he doesn't give up any power, of course, because he's Peter Karmanos and he's a prick). Doesn't seem like the kind of thing you'd do if you were satisfied with your cashflow.

I've gotten on board with your idea that Raleigh-Durham would be a very good spot for a big-league baseball team, but I don't believe in it as far as the NHL goes. It's neither a big city that "expands the footprint" nor is it a small but high-ceiling Hockey Town that strengthens the league in terms of undeniable passion for the game. It's thoroughly underwhelming and wouldn't be in the conversation but for the whims of Karmanos and his failure to move the Whalers to Auburn Hills.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The fan base is here for the Hawks. (And attendance is up this year, for what it's worth)

The problem is that there was a lot of losing and a bumbling ownership. And yeah, they've been here for nearly 50 years, but have never reached the conference semifinals since being in Atlanta.

The other problem is that no one's from Atlanta, it seems. A majority of people have moved here from wherever. They keep their loyalties to their team, and the Hawks haven't given a product to be "must see" since Dominique left.

The fact that their on-court struggles have mirrored their attendance struggles is enough for me to say the team should still be given a chance.

I can only get on a city so much for failing to support a bad team. I'm not going to call anyone disloyal for not wanting to pay money to go see a 20 win basketball team.

They've consistently had one of the worst ownership situations in the NBA and save for a couple of splashes of success here and there are pretty consistently at the bottom of the standings. Even when they had Dominique they never put enough around him in order to seriously challenge the Celtics, Pistons and Bulls for dominance in the East. Same deal with the Dikembe Mutombo led teams of the 90's. Solid starting five, but outside of Alan Henderson nobody coming off the bench.

As for the "I'm not from here I just work here" statement, that seems to be a big problem with a lot of the southern teams. You look at the amount of population growth in areas like Atlanta, there's no way all of it can be internal, or people moving in from rural parts of Georgia. They don't have the advantage of having a lot of residents who's families have been living in the city since 1850 and for a lot of the cities down South, Atlanta included I think they are still finding their identity because of that.

If and when the Hawks can ever turn into a winner for more then a couple of seasons, then we'll know how supportive the city really is of the franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to something I read on RantSports, the Rays are likely relocating in the next couple seasons. Montreal and Charlotte were both mentioned in the article, if I remember correctly. We all know that if they move to Montreal, it's a 95% shot they'll be the second coming of the Expos. But what would they name themselves in Charlotte? With the Panthers and former Bobcats, it kinda seems like Charlotte has a thing for big cat names. Maybe the Cheetahs or Leopards?

53Ocz8U.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the sad truth is that there simply are not enough viable markets for the teams that exist now, and relocation isn't going to fix that. Either the economics of sports needs to change, or contraction across the board will eventually be necessary. You can move a team here and there, but once the new-car smell wears off, the new market will (in most of the cases that are being discussed here) just end up being talked about like the old one

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.