NBA back to Seattle? NHL too?

[RedSox44]

I'm a little surprised nobody's given a nod to the 1917 Stanley Cup Champion "Metropolitans".

Was just about to post that.

"Seattle Metropolitans" still sounds fantastic, nearly 100 years later.

[rams80]

Move the Bobcats to Seattle, the Hornets to Charlotte, and then move the Hornets to Utah and then move the Jazz to New Orleans and then move them back to Utah and then make an origami swan

Let's get the Dodgers back to Brooklyn and the Colts to Baltimore while we're at it.

Rams back to Los Angeles!

The Raptors to move, really? 19th in attendance for a 20-win team that just lost its franchise player and has never won anything is pretty darn good.

Yeah. Besides, I thought the Leafs liked having them around to soak up arena dates.

[rvrdgsfn]

I'm a little surprised nobody's given a nod to the 1917 Stanley Cup Champion "Metropolitans".

Was just about to post that.

"Seattle Metropolitans" still sounds fantastic, nearly 100 years later.

Actually, I think that name would work, if Ottawa could name their team after the first Stanley Cup champions, why not Seattle? Maybe even show a mixture of old team names.

[WSU151]

You really think the Seattle Mets will work? I'm thinking they gotta come up with something else.

[DaytonBlue]

I thought of another one...Seattle Emeralds? (nickname is Emerald City)

[jgladding]

Mods can we split this topic? We need a Sacramento thread...

[RedSox44]

I thought of another one...Seattle Emeralds? (nickname is Emerald City)

Metropolitans is better.

I doubt you'll see it return though, much to my chagrin.

[jgladding]

Disagree. Some nights the Cats outdraw the A's. With a minor league team. Corporations are here, they just haven't stepped up yet.

Riley could expand with enough money.

It's a long shot, yes... But I think the town could support it.

Not a chance. Raley Field would have to be leveled to be "expanded" to support MLB. It's not capable of being expanded in its current form which will require the full 400+ million for a new ballpark.

So then build a new ballpark.

They can expand Raley Field for a couple of years or just stay in Oakland until a new stadium is built in Sacramento. They're looking into building a new stadium already. Its not like Fremont or San Jose have any current ballpark options either. (And yes I know Fremont is dead before three different people jump on it.)

How do you propose expanding Raley Field even temporarily? There's no room. Not to mention the infrastructure around the park wouldn't support MLB sized crowds.

As for, "so just build a new ballpark"... with what money and where do you propose doing it? Sac can't even fully fund a 250 million arena. How do you expect they'll fund a 450 million dollar ballpark?

Same mentality is pissing on arena plans. We need more dreamers, less jaded pessimists in Sacramento.

[tp49]

Disagree. Some nights the Cats outdraw the A's. With a minor league team. Corporations are here, they just haven't stepped up yet.

Riley could expand with enough money.

It's a long shot, yes... But I think the town could support it.

Not a chance. Raley Field would have to be leveled to be "expanded" to support MLB. It's not capable of being expanded in its current form which will require the full 400+ million for a new ballpark.

So then build a new ballpark.

They can expand Raley Field for a couple of years or just stay in Oakland until a new stadium is built in Sacramento. They're looking into building a new stadium already. Its not like Fremont or San Jose have any current ballpark options either. (And yes I know Fremont is dead before three different people jump on it.)

Are you going to pay for the new ballpark then? This is a city that has in the past couple of years laid off police officers. Getting the arena in the railyards is going to be difficult enough of a battle. There is absolutely no way in hell that the voters of Sacramento (of which I am one) would support funding a $450 million baseball stadium in addition. Getting a $250 million arena funded is enough of a crap shoot. Raley Field cannot be expanded in it's current form and would have to be leveled and rebuilt to be brought up to major league standards.

My whole thing is they haven't even explored it. I could see if they looked into in and decided against it, but I haven't even seen it be put on the table.

Sacramento's also a pretty booming town from what I understand. They've had double digit growth rates almost every decade with the exception of the 70's when pretty much every city lost people. It has a metro population of around 2.5 million. That's larger then Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Nashville and New Orleans which are all cities with multiple pro sports teams. I fail to see why this would be just flat out impossible to pull it off, but by not even looking at it that's basically what the A's are saying.

I think the A's are just too headstrong with staying in the Bay Area.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Second, you obviously have little to no understanding of the Sacramento area. This is a city (and region) that was decimated by the housing crisis and the economic downturn. The earliest predictions for the economy in this region to return to pre-recession levels is 2014. You fail to see why this would be flat out impossible because you fail to understand the region and the local issues here. Both the City and County of Sacramento are facing large budget deficits and are making hard decisions about making deeper cuts to critical programs. As I earlier stated there is little to no corporate base in Sacramento who would buy the luxury boxes a team would need to fill to make a venture worth it revenue wise up here. Sacramento's predominant employer is the State of California who itself is looking to layoff workers left and right and is in the middle of a huge budget mess and unemployment in the region is at an all time high. Unless Lew Wolff wants to pretty much singlehandedly wants to pay for a stadium capable for the A's to play in here then it's not going to happen in Sacramento.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Yeah, stupid.

Interesting point about the problems in putting a sports team in a state capital that isn't of the Boston or Phoenix variety. There generally isn't much corporate investment in tier two state capitals like Albany, Tallahassee, Springfield, and, yes, Sacramento.

Who's dumb idea was it to move the Kings to Sacramento in the first place?

[bosrs1]

Disagree. Some nights the Cats outdraw the A's. With a minor league team. Corporations are here, they just haven't stepped up yet.

Riley could expand with enough money.

It's a long shot, yes... But I think the town could support it.

Not a chance. Raley Field would have to be leveled to be "expanded" to support MLB. It's not capable of being expanded in its current form which will require the full 400+ million for a new ballpark.

So then build a new ballpark.

They can expand Raley Field for a couple of years or just stay in Oakland until a new stadium is built in Sacramento. They're looking into building a new stadium already. Its not like Fremont or San Jose have any current ballpark options either. (And yes I know Fremont is dead before three different people jump on it.)

How do you propose expanding Raley Field even temporarily? There's no room. Not to mention the infrastructure around the park wouldn't support MLB sized crowds.

As for, "so just build a new ballpark"... with what money and where do you propose doing it? Sac can't even fully fund a 250 million arena. How do you expect they'll fund a 450 million dollar ballpark?

Same mentality is pissing on arena plans. We need more dreamers, less jaded pessimists in Sacramento.

Sorry but reality is not "pissing on arena plans." Nor is expressing realism, pessimism. Come up with a realistic plan that could fund a 450 million dollar stadium in a cash strapped city in a down economy and you'll be a real dreamer. Saying, "just build it" without any idea how to is just being naive or worse delusional.

[DaRadniz29]

I thought this was a NBA and NHL thread - according to the post title, though maybe NHL was added afterwards. Anyway, I'll jump in on the naming of the NHL team to Seattle, even though the NHL to the Emerald City has probably more complications that solutions at this time.

Since Emeralds and Sonics have been said/taken - Not sure Emeralds would work for hockey team. Maybe baseball.

Seattle:

From NHL 12 and others I've heard mention

- Spiders (Used by SF hockey club, but might work)

- Shadows

- Stallions

- Seals

- Cosmos (Great, another cool nickname without a decent logo...)

- Freeze

- Alpines

- Firebirds

- Gladiators

- Grizzlies

- Condors

- Blades

- Chiefs

- Blizzard

- Comets

- Renegades

- Spartans

- Stingers

- Vipers

- Solars ( I added this one. It's not in the game and have yet to hear anyone put it in the running)

I'd also say Stealth, but that would probably require NLL Washington Stealth to change their name. Though Stealth fits as far as the whole super sonic theme.

My top ones would be (In no particular order) and potential colors.

- Seals (Yeah, the history of Seals as a nickname aren't very positive, but Seattle Seals does roll off the tongue nicely)

Midnight Purple, Metallic Silver, Ice Blue.

- Solars (Don't know how to represent the logo, but the name would be unique)

Forest Green, White and Gold

- Freeze (Makes sense and rolls off the tongue) Mascot ideas?)

Ice Blue, Black and Cherry

- Spiders (Another unique name, not used commonly in sports, and few teams adopt this nickname)

Black, Green, Orange and Silver.

- Renegades (Could make for a cool logo)

Red, Black and Silver

- Stealth (See NLL Washington Stealth, then beg )

Black, Silver, Red

- Grizzlies (Might create confusion with Minnesota - again is it a Bear or Wildcat? Minnesota's answer - YES!

Navy, Silver, and Orange?

- Cosmos (Again, any ideas on a logo?, Again kind of a unique nickname)

Purple and Gold

- Shadows ( Close to the Stealth name, but kind of it's own)

Black and Silver with Red.

not really creative on the colors, just what I was thinking off the top of my head.

[IceCap]

If one team is likely to move to Seattle, the Raptors would be a good candidate. The NBA in Canada has never been relevant, and this most likely the final season for the Raptors at the ACC.

The Raptors are fine. They draw decently and MLSE likes having them around to fill dates at the ACC. Plus it's fricken' MLSE. So they're set financially.

[Sodboy13]

I thought of another one...Seattle Emeralds? (nickname is Emerald City)

I do like the sound of thst. Plus we'd finally get an NHL team wearing green again.

[jgladding]

]

[jgladding]

I'm more thinking of the arena opponents, who somehow feel that leasing out city garages we are losing $8M a year on and building an arena, which would bring much needed jobs, is somehow fleecing taxpayers. I just don't get it. We have acres of pristine undeveloped land and a mountain of opportunity in front of us. And there no taxes. People just don't realize how much losing an NBA team (no matter how :censored:ty they are) will hurt us.

[OMMF]

I thought of another one...Seattle Emeralds? (nickname is Emerald City)

I do like the sound of thst. Plus we'd finally get an NHL team wearing green again.

For the first year, maybe. Then the green would darken each successive season and, before you know it, a black jersey.

[NJTank]

Seattle Metropolitans Make it so.

[bigbean24]

Why not Pilots?

[DG_ThenNowForever]

The Seattle metropolitan area currently supports an NFL team, an MLB team, NCAA football, NCAA basketball, an MLS team, a WNBA team and apparently soon, an NBA team.

I say that to point out that while the region does have a lot of money, I don't know that there's a huge demand for NHL hockey here. It being an international niche product does help garner Seattleite interests by default, but I don't know if that translates to year-over-year entrenched support. It would be cool to have an NHL team here, but I don't think pent up demand exists for one. Happy yo be wrong though.