NBA back to Seattle? NHL too?

[FiddySicks]

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.

Like I said earlier, I'd love nothing more than to see the Kings get a new arena and the A's to move to Sacramento. It's the closest big city to me, and I lived there for a few years and absolutely loved it. I definitely consider it my home away from home. But for as much as I love the area, it's just not possible right now to get the A's there. Back at the turn of the century the area absolutely exploded, and had the housing market not crashed it would be able to support three or four teams by now or at least very soon. But the Sac metro area was absolutely devastated by the economic downturn to the point where some of the suburbs of Sac are nearly deserted. I lived east of Sac in the Roseville/Rocklin area and it was so bad that the majority of small businesses that went up not even ten years ago sit empty. You go to any shopping area down there and you'll see most of the store spaces closed. They had this idea for building "Mini Mansions" and most of them sit unfinished because the developers literally ran out of money mid way through. As much as I love it, the Sacramento area just doesn't have the economic infrastructure to support what they have, let alone more.

I do have to disagree with whoever said that the Raley Field site wouldn't support a major league park, though. One of the reasons the site was picked is because it's a big abandoned train yard just next to downtown and a major freeway entrance for HWY 50 and HWY 80. One of the reasons the spot was picked in the first place, and one of the reasons the stadium was constructed the way it was, was because they actually anticipated getting the A's at some point. I've seen the blueprints for how they could do it and it really wouldn't take a full tear down to make it happen. I have heard that there may be some structural issues, but I've also seen reports that conflict that too. If the structural issues aren't as severe as some think, the renovation could be done relatively easily and cost effectively.

[gosioux76]

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.

I'm not entirely surprised that Seattle has suddenly risen to the top of the list of potential Coyotes destinations. But, other than Quebec City, I'm still surprised to see Las Vegas and Kansas City continue to be mentioned.

Also, I wonder why Portland doesn't get a stronger look. A colleague of mine last year reported on how a group of regional business execs here in Portland were brainstorming ways to attract an NHL team to be a co-tenant of the Rose Garden.

The downfalls of Portland are apparent -- we have a relatively small corporate base and a thin pool of potential owners-- but we've got one thing Seattle doesn't: an arena.

I figure that alone would put the city in the conversation.

[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.

Like I said earlier, I'd love nothing more than to see the Kings get a new arena and the A's to move to Sacramento. It's the closest big city to me, and I lived there for a few years and absolutely loved it. I definitely consider it my home away from home. But for as much as I love the area, it's just not possible right now to get the A's there. Back at the turn of the century the area absolutely exploded, and had the housing market not crashed it would be able to support three or four teams by now or at least very soon. But the Sac metro area was absolutely devastated by the economic downturn to the point where some of the suburbs of Sac are nearly deserted. I lived east of Sac in the Roseville/Rocklin area and it was so bad that the majority of small businesses that went up not even ten years ago sit empty. You go to any shopping area down there and you'll see most of the store spaces closed. They had this idea for building "Mini Mansions" and most of them sit unfinished because the developers literally ran out of money mid way through. As much as I love it, the Sacramento area just doesn't have the economic infrastructure to support what they have, let alone more.

I do have to disagree with whoever said that the Raley Field site wouldn't support a major league park, though. One of the reasons the site was picked is because it's a big abandoned train yard just next to downtown and a major freeway entrance for HWY 50 and HWY 80. One of the reasons the spot was picked in the first place, and one of the reasons the stadium was constructed the way it was, was because they actually anticipated getting the A's at some point. I've seen the blueprints for how they could do it and it really wouldn't take a full tear down to make it happen. I have heard that there may be some structural issues, but I've also seen reports that conflict that too. If the structural issues aren't as severe as some think, the renovation could be done relatively easily and cost effectively.

The original plans did call for Raley to be expandable. Indeed that was the original intention as you say. However during construction due to rain and delays they redesigned the stadium to speed construction and in doing so removed the ability to expand. That's why it's not doable today. The current Raley Field, while a great minor league venue, can never be expanded to work for MLB.

[pmoehrin]

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.

I'm not entirely surprised that Seattle has suddenly risen to the top of the list of potential Coyotes destinations. But, other than Quebec City, I'm still surprised to see Las Vegas and Kansas City continue to be mentioned.

Vegas I don't think of anything more then a pipe dream especially for hockey.

Kansas City they have to look at because the Sprint Center is a really nice building which I'm sure by itself will attract alot of teams looking at a potential move, but for hockey I don't see it. Basketball might be a different story though. Granted they didn't draw well for that either, but the Kings usually had terrible teams in Kansas City and for the most part have had terrible teams in Sacramento as well. Kansas City also got "Seattled" to an extent as well I feel with how they lost the Kings.

I think its at best debatable as to whether or not they deserved to lose the Kings, but I do feel like they at least deserve a second chance with the NBA.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

[jgladding]

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

Sacramento is a top 25 market, with a 20% growth rate since 2000. Its metropolitan area is larger than:

- charlotte

- portland

- cincinatti

- orlando

- cleveland

- kansas city

- indianapolis

- vegas

- san jose

- oklahoma city

Most of these cities have major universities nearby as well. Sacramento does not.

[dfwabel]

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

Sacramento is a top 25 market, with a 20% growth rate since 2000. Its metropolitan area is larger than:

- charlotte

- portland

- cincinatti

- orlando

- cleveland

- kansas city

- indianapolis

- vegas

- san jose

- oklahoma city

Most of these cities have major universities nearby as well. Sacramento does not.

I guess you didn't look at the enrollments (or federal research funding received) of both Sacramento State and UC Davis.

[jgladding]

^ I'm a Sac State grad. I'd love nothing more than to see the Hornets and Aggies in the Pac 12. However the Big Sky ain't big-time. At least not yet.

[The_Admiral]

http://ballparks.phanfare.com/4258449

I think it would be fair to be skeptical of Sacramento in 1985. This was an NBA arena for three years. It looks like a mid-major college gym. Dig the 45-degree-angled press box!

[DG_ThenNowForever]

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

Sacramento is a top 25 market, with a 20% growth rate since 2000. Its metropolitan area is larger than:

- charlotte

- portland

- cincinatti

- orlando

- cleveland

- kansas city

- indianapolis

- vegas

- san jose

- oklahoma city

Most of these cities have major universities nearby as well. Sacramento does not.

But is it also true Sacramento doesn't have much by way of private industry? That was my key point. If your primary employer is government, you're not as financially flexible as those other cities with more diverse economies.

[pmoehrin]

http://ballparks.phanfare.com/4258449

I think it would be fair to be skeptical of Sacramento in 1985. This was an NBA arena for three years. It looks like a mid-major college gym. Dig the 45-degree-angled press box!

I'm sure many an NBA player had to walk into that place and wonder what the hell is this place? I've played high school games in better venues then this. Especially when they used to play in Kemper Arena, which at the time was a large modern venue.

That arena is the main reason why I mentioned Kansas City getting "Seattled" to an extent. The Kings did not move into an NBA ready arena and were three years away from getting one. They didn't leave Kansas City to move into a better situation. They left Kansas City to move into a terrible situation for three years until they could move into a decent situation. The only explanation for that is the owners have the team were dead set on having a team in Sacramento and weren't going to consider playing anywhere else.

[bosrs1]

Sacramento's Metro area is bigger than San Jose's... since when?

[MadmanLA]

http://ballparks.phanfare.com/4258449

I think it would be fair to be skeptical of Sacramento in 1985. This was an NBA arena for three years. It looks like a mid-major college gym. Dig the 45-degree-angled press box!

I'm sure many an NBA player had to walk into that place and wonder what the hell is this place? I've played high school games in better venues then this. Especially when they used to play in Kemper Arena, which at the time was a large modern venue.

That arena is the main reason why I mentioned Kansas City getting "Seattled" to an extent. The Kings did not move into an NBA ready arena and were three years away from getting one. They didn't leave Kansas City to move into a better situation. They left Kansas City to move into a terrible situation for three years until they could move into a decent situation. The only explanation for that is the owners have the team were dead set on having a team in Sacramento and weren't going to consider playing anywhere else.

Another factor in the motivation the Kings' move to Sacramento was that its television market size was (and still is) bigger that Kansas City's, which is what these sports leagues really look at. I don't know what the numbers were in 1985, but the Sacramento market is ranked #20, while Kansas City is 31st in the present day.

And by at looking at those pictures of Arco I, I've seen better venues at smaller Division-1 schools.

[WSU151]

Sacramento's Metro area is bigger than San Jose's... since when?

Take a look at the 2010 census. Sacramento metropolitan area has 2.1m people, San Jose has 1.8m.

Sacramento's metro area population is not bigger than Portland's, though.

^ I'm a Sac State grad. I'd love nothing more than to see the Hornets and Aggies in the Pac 12. However the Big Sky ain't big-time. At least not yet.

So what you meant to say is there are no major collegiate athletic departments nearby. The universities are major...their enrollments are huge.

[bosrs1]

Sacramento's Metro area is bigger than San Jose's... since when?

Take a look at the 2010 census. Sacramento metropolitan area has 2.1m people, San Jose has 1.8m.

Sacramento's metro area population is not bigger than Portland's, though.

^ I'm a Sac State grad. I'd love nothing more than to see the Hornets and Aggies in the Pac 12. However the Big Sky ain't big-time. At least not yet.

So what you meant to say is there are no major collegiate athletic departments nearby. The universities are major...their enrollments are huge.

Oh you're using that definition. It's not a realistic one as it assumes that people in southern Alameda County (Fremont, Newark, Sunol, etc...) and southern San Mateo County (Menlo Park, East PA, Woodside, etc...) aren't in "San Jose's metro area" which anyone who has spent 5 minutes in the Bay Area knows is BS. A far better definition of San Jose's metro area is somewhere between the "metro" and the "Urban" population of 7.5 million. Arbitrary lines are nice to draw on census data but they don't reflect reality in many cases, this is one. The census still runs on the out of date premise that San Francisco is the center of the Bay Area and largest city.

[GFB]

I've wanted the Seattle Thunderbirds to make the jump to the NHL since I was a little kid. I love that identity.

[pmoehrin]

http://ballparks.phanfare.com/4258449

I think it would be fair to be skeptical of Sacramento in 1985. This was an NBA arena for three years. It looks like a mid-major college gym. Dig the 45-degree-angled press box!

I'm sure many an NBA player had to walk into that place and wonder what the hell is this place? I've played high school games in better venues then this. Especially when they used to play in Kemper Arena, which at the time was a large modern venue.

That arena is the main reason why I mentioned Kansas City getting "Seattled" to an extent. The Kings did not move into an NBA ready arena and were three years away from getting one. They didn't leave Kansas City to move into a better situation. They left Kansas City to move into a terrible situation for three years until they could move into a decent situation. The only explanation for that is the owners have the team were dead set on having a team in Sacramento and weren't going to consider playing anywhere else.

Another factor in the motivation the Kings' move to Sacramento was that its television market size was (and still is) bigger that Kansas City's, which is what these sports leagues really look at. I don't know what the numbers were in 1985, but the Sacramento market is ranked #20, while Kansas City is 31st in the present day.

And by at looking at those pictures of Arco I, I've seen better venues at smaller Division-1 schools.

I don't what the metro areas were because I can't find any data on the Sacramento metro area prior to 1990, but if you want to go by 1980 Kansas City had a population of around 450K while Sacramento was around 275K.

I don't think there was any reasoning with moving the Kings from Kansas City to Sacramento beyond the owners of the Kings wanted them in Sacramento.

[WSU151]

Sacramento's Metro area is bigger than San Jose's... since when?

Take a look at the 2010 census. Sacramento metropolitan area has 2.1m people, San Jose has 1.8m.

Sacramento's metro area population is not bigger than Portland's, though.

^ I'm a Sac State grad. I'd love nothing more than to see the Hornets and Aggies in the Pac 12. However the Big Sky ain't big-time. At least not yet.

So what you meant to say is there are no major collegiate athletic departments nearby. The universities are major...their enrollments are huge.

Oh you're using that definition. It's not a realistic one as it assumes that people in southern Alameda County (Fremont, Newark, Sunol, etc...) and southern San Mateo County (Menlo Park, East PA, Woodside, etc...) aren't in "San Jose's metro area" which anyone who has spent 5 minutes in the Bay Area knows is BS. A far better definition of San Jose's metro area is somewhere between the "metro" and the "Urban" population of 7.5 million. Arbitrary lines are nice to draw on census data but they don't reflect reality in many cases, this is one. The census still runs on the out of date premise that San Francisco is the center of the Bay Area and largest city.

A lot of studies are based on US Census numbers rather than the more nebulous "Well, if you lived here for five minutes, you'd realize such and such" numbers.

[rams80]

Sacramento's Metro area is bigger than San Jose's... since when?

Take a look at the 2010 census. Sacramento metropolitan area has 2.1m people, San Jose has 1.8m.

Sacramento's metro area population is not bigger than Portland's, though.

^ I'm a Sac State grad. I'd love nothing more than to see the Hornets and Aggies in the Pac 12. However the Big Sky ain't big-time. At least not yet.

So what you meant to say is there are no major collegiate athletic departments nearby. The universities are major...their enrollments are huge.

Oh you're using that definition. It's not a realistic one as it assumes that people in southern Alameda County (Fremont, Newark, Sunol, etc...) and southern San Mateo County (Menlo Park, East PA, Woodside, etc...) aren't in "San Jose's metro area" which anyone who has spent 5 minutes in the Bay Area knows is BS. A far better definition of San Jose's metro area is somewhere between the "metro" and the "Urban" population of 7.5 million. Arbitrary lines are nice to draw on census data but they don't reflect reality in many cases, this is one. The census still runs on the out of date premise that San Francisco is the center of the Bay Area and largest city.

A lot of studies are based on US Census numbers rather than the more nebulous "Well, if you lived here for five minutes, you'd realize such and such" numbers.

Isn't the San Francisco Bay area just treated as one giant metroplex anyway?

[bosrs1]

Sacramento's Metro area is bigger than San Jose's... since when?

Take a look at the 2010 census. Sacramento metropolitan area has 2.1m people, San Jose has 1.8m.

Sacramento's metro area population is not bigger than Portland's, though.

^ I'm a Sac State grad. I'd love nothing more than to see the Hornets and Aggies in the Pac 12. However the Big Sky ain't big-time. At least not yet.

So what you meant to say is there are no major collegiate athletic departments nearby. The universities are major...their enrollments are huge.

Oh you're using that definition. It's not a realistic one as it assumes that people in southern Alameda County (Fremont, Newark, Sunol, etc...) and southern San Mateo County (Menlo Park, East PA, Woodside, etc...) aren't in "San Jose's metro area" which anyone who has spent 5 minutes in the Bay Area knows is BS. A far better definition of San Jose's metro area is somewhere between the "metro" and the "Urban" population of 7.5 million. Arbitrary lines are nice to draw on census data but they don't reflect reality in many cases, this is one. The census still runs on the out of date premise that San Francisco is the center of the Bay Area and largest city.

A lot of studies are based on US Census numbers rather than the more nebulous "Well, if you lived here for five minutes, you'd realize such and such" numbers.

True. But it doesn't mean they're reflective of the region. The Bay Area "metro" MSA areas are divided between the entire east bay and peninsula (both of which extend to within a few miles of San Jose) as one large region and then divide just the immediate area around San Jose out like it's a separate entity. While it may work for the census bureau when creating their MSA's, it doesn't reflect the geography or sociology of the region accurately. A better measure is the CSA that defines the Bay Area as a whole.