PDA

View Full Version : What cities are most likely to get a NBA team next before Seattle does?



NikeBoots521
06-09-2013, 04:30 PM
I see Seattle tried pursuing the Sacramento Kings but Seattle failed again. I'm just curious will an NBA team finally make it to Las Vegas? Austin? Or the State of Virginia? How about states that don't have an NBA team? You don't think a professional basketball squad would succeed in the Sin City?

ChitownBears22
06-09-2013, 04:32 PM
I would like to see a reduction of teams before an expansion or move.

FunnyGuy45
06-09-2013, 04:34 PM
My home state of Delaware could finally use a team.

SportsFanatic10
06-09-2013, 04:38 PM
I think Seattle gets the next team but who knows, Stern has mentioned trying to put teams in Europe in the future.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
06-09-2013, 04:39 PM
Doesn't look like there's going to be any relocating and definitely any expansion going on any time soon. Have to wait for another ownership group to start to lose money at a high rate and looking to sell their team before we have can speculate about this.


My home state of Delaware could finally use a team.

No chance.

TorontoHuskies
06-09-2013, 05:18 PM
They should expand into Canada more and put one in Montreal (pop 3.64 million) and Vancouver (pop 2.3 million)....Just look at all the NBA players which are coming out of the Toronto area because of the Raptors.

ChitownBears22
06-09-2013, 05:21 PM
They should expand into Canada more and put one in Montreal and Vancouver (again)....Just look at all the NBA players which are coming out of the Toronto area because of the Raptors.

I would like to see franchises moved to Canada not expansion teams. The NBA does not need expansion.

ManRam
06-09-2013, 05:30 PM
My home state of Delaware could finally use a team.

Yeah???? I think you should probably give up on the dream :laugh2:


I would like to see a reduction of teams before an expansion or move.

I don't see either happening, but there's no reason for contraction.

Besides the Bobcats, the only franchises that have been losing real money consistently over the half-decade are contending ones (Nets, Pacers, Mavs, Grizzlies, etc.). The NBA might have franchises that are struggling to win, but this isn't like baseball where attendance is crippling teams.

jerellh528
06-09-2013, 05:31 PM
Riverside ca. I woulda said San Diego but San Diego is a crappy city for sports.

ChitownBears22
06-09-2013, 05:31 PM
Yeah???? I think you should probably give up on the dream :laugh2:



I don't see either happening, but there's no reason for contraction.

Besides the Bobcats, the only franchises that have been losing real money consistently over the half-decade are contending ones (Nets, Pacers, Mavs, Grizzlies, etc.). The NBA might have franchises that are struggling to win, but this isn't like baseball where attendance is crippling teams.
Not contraction for money reasons. Contraction for competitive reasons. Less watered down talent pool

TorontoHuskies
06-09-2013, 05:36 PM
I would like to see franchises moved to Canada not expansion teams. The NBA does not need expansion.

Yea I agree the NBA is too watered-down as it is...Relocation is the only real option.

jerellh528
06-09-2013, 05:40 PM
Yea I agree the NBA is too watered-down as it is...Relocation is the only real option.

I don't think the nba is watered down at all. Arguably there is more YOUNG talent today than I've ever seen in the nba. Even bottom feeder teams have a good array of guys that can make them playoff teams in a few yrs.

ManRam
06-09-2013, 05:41 PM
Not contraction for money reasons. Contraction for competitive reasons. Less watered down talent pool

Unless it's overwhelmingly worth it financially, the league isn't gonna do it. I'm not gonna act like I know exactly how much cutting out two teams (say, Charlotte and NO) helps or hurts the league financially, but yeah...

There's always going to be poor parity in the NBA (at least compared to he NFL and NHL) because of the power individual players have. One player can shape a franchise far more than any other sport. There are still going to be bottom feeders stuck at the bottom whether we have 30 teams, 32 teams, 28 teams or whatever.

I don't think it's as "watered down" as you think either.

MrfadeawayJB
06-09-2013, 07:22 PM
North Korea should get a team.

mrblisterdundee
06-09-2013, 08:11 PM
I still firmly believe that cities with NHL stadiums are best situated to get an NBA team, as the cost of constructing a new stadium is still pretty risky in this slowly recovering economy. But there is no team more situated than Seattle to get a team, especially not after that run at the Kings.
1. Seattle's the obvious exception to the existing stadium rule, as it seems willing to go the distance to get its team back while the memory is still fresh, even if that means constructing its third major league stadium in 15 years.
2. Kansas City is isolated and has a wonderful new arena. One problem is that people there are very poor compared to Californians and British Columbians, but they're very big basketball fans. A team in Kansas City would have a similar aura of the Pacers.
3. Pittsburgh has a nice new arena and seems to do well with all its sports.
4. Vancouver, British Columbia, has a decent NHL stadium, a ton of rich people, a booming population and economy and is the third most filmed-in city after Bombay and Los Angeles. People don't register that it was bad management that let the Grizzlies end up in Memphis, not that Vancouver's a bad location.
5. San Jose is the third largest city in California and has an NHL stadium. Anaheim is a feeder of Los Angeles and has a stadium. San Diego would make more sense than either but doesn't have an NHL stadium to use. Of course I don't want any more teams in California, but all three of those cities seem more logical places for an NBA team than Sacramento.

mrblisterdundee
06-09-2013, 08:16 PM
I don't think the nba is watered down at all. Arguably there is more YOUNG talent today than I've ever seen in the nba. Even bottom feeder teams have a good array of guys that can make them playoff teams in a few yrs.

I have to agree with you here. And I'll add that the concentration of superstars on one team also makes the NBA seem watered-down at times. It'd be great if the NBA could get back to a balance where one or two stars would be all a team needs to go all the way. Of course, we're seing a lot of star-laden teams fail, which is quite satisfying.

RollingWave
06-09-2013, 11:13 PM
you can expand 5 teams and non of them would be worse than the Bobcats.

If you want everyone to be like the Spurs / Heat, you need to contract by at least 10 team.

I'm for expansion, in the longer run it'll almost surely lead to increase talent pool and revenue anyway. and lets be honest here, it's way too easy to make the playoffs in the NBA these days. especially in the East.

Hellcrooner
06-09-2013, 11:26 PM
Bring Back the Seattle Sonics and the Kentucky Colonels and call if a day with 32 franchises.

king4day
06-10-2013, 12:11 AM
How did Seattle fail? They did everything right. The league denied them because Sacramento had a comparable offer and the team was already theirs.
To answer the question, no team. Seattle, IMO, is next in line. Whether it be by expansion or a franchise moving

Sinattle
06-10-2013, 12:28 AM
I'm surprised St. Louis doesn't have a team

RiceOnTheRun
06-10-2013, 05:03 AM
LA.

Neither the Clippers nor Lakers made it out of the first round this year. Something needs to be fixed.

JasonJohnHorn
06-10-2013, 01:14 PM
I would be furious if the NBA let a team go to Nevada/Vegas. In Ontario (the province where Toronto is) we have a "ProLine" lottery game where we can bet on sports games. We used to be able to bet on basketball, but when the NBA was bring the Raptors in, they said the Ontario Gaming Commission had to remove NBA betting from ProLine in order to get the team. They said gambling on basketball wasn't allowed in cities where NBA teams played. If the NBA lets Vegas get a team but keeps sticking it to Ontario, I will be upset.


Seattle will be the next city with a team. I can't see any other city getting one before them.

mgsports
06-10-2013, 07:15 PM
Tampa Bay could had the Magic?

Buffalo?
New Jersey?
Omaha?
KC and ST. Louis would be good.
Green Bay,Jacksonville,Cincinatti and so on?
Nashville?
Washington needs to be moved Atlantic and Minnesota Central,Pistions,Cavs and Pacers to Centraleast.

Tony_Starks
06-10-2013, 07:25 PM
More than likely Anaheim. They have the location, money, and a thirsty fan base.

Would've been Vegas but the antics and shenanigans at allstar weekend in Vegas pretty much screwed that up.

jerellh528
06-10-2013, 07:29 PM
why doesn't vegas have a team? or nfl or mlb for that matter? its one of the most visited cities in the world and the people there need something else to do besides gamble.

mrblisterdundee
06-10-2013, 10:03 PM
why doesn't vegas have a team? or nfl or mlb for that matter? its one of the most visited cities in the world and the people there need something else to do besides gamble.

It's nothing more than a tourist trap, with people only coming to gamble, have fun and leave soon thereafter. And Vegas is still one of the foreclosure capitals of the U.S. Why waste your time there?

c.c.
06-11-2013, 12:02 AM
why doesn't vegas have a team? or nfl or mlb for that matter? its one of the most visited cities in the world and the people there need something else to do besides gamble.

Most visited not populated

kombayn
06-11-2013, 12:11 AM
The teams to look out for in the near future at the Atlanta Hawks, Milwaukee Bucks & Minnesota Timberwolves. Atlanta is bleeding money, but the only way I see the NBA leaving the ATL is if Turner Sports doesn't re-new its TV agreement with the NBA, otherwise the NBA TV & TNT studios are in ATL and that would just be strange I would think.

Milwaukee has said that if a new arena agreement is ready by the end of their lease after the 2016-17 season, they'll move and I think that's a high percentage chance of happening and Minnesota has been put up for sale two different times and they can relocate anytime they want but Taylor the head of the NBA's Board of Governors wants out soon, which I can see happening, especially if he wants to sell to Hansen's group.

Seattle will get the first crack at any relocation for a team, then you have Henry Samueli that would love a team to put at the Honda Center in Anaheim, Larry Ellison who wants to bring a team to San Jose since he lost out on the Warriors and political leaders out of Louisville, Kentucky say they have international investors from the Middle East that would love to bring a team to the KFC Yum! Center if a deal can be made with the University of Louisville. Other than that, contraction would be the next best option for the NBA.

c.c.
06-11-2013, 12:14 AM
I don't think the nba is watered down at all. Arguably there is more YOUNG talent today than I've ever seen in the nba. Even bottom feeder teams have a good array of guys that can make them playoff teams in a few yrs.

But that young talent end up leaving that franchise after they get elite and in their prime. Nowadays players are using small market teams as some type of D- League. Staying there til they development their skills and name then leave or force they way out. LeBron, Melo, Howard, Garnett, Paul, etc.

RiceOnTheRun
06-11-2013, 05:21 AM
But that young talent end up leaving that franchise after they get elite and in their prime. Nowadays players are using small market teams as some type of D- League. Staying there til they development their skills and name then leave or force they way out. LeBron, Melo, Howard, Garnett, Paul, etc.

Well that's if they don't build around them correctly. Would you want to stay with a team where you don't get any help? Run the mediocrity treadmill for you entire career?

Spurs did it and OKC is doing it right now. You mention Melo, but look at how Denver's doing now. It's possible, but people just blame superstars for getting fed up with their useless front offices. As a Rockets fan, you should know what a good front office can do, you guys are on the verge of being a contender if you pick up CP3 or Dwight.

Raps_93
06-11-2013, 07:05 AM
I would be furious if the NBA let a team go to Nevada/Vegas. In Ontario (the province where Toronto is) we have a "ProLine" lottery game where we can bet on sports games. We used to be able to bet on basketball, but when the NBA was bring the Raptors in, they said the Ontario Gaming Commission had to remove NBA betting from ProLine in order to get the team. They said gambling on basketball wasn't allowed in cities where NBA teams played. If the NBA lets Vegas get a team but keeps sticking it to Ontario, I will be upset.


I was wondering why there was no basketball pools! a shame..

PhillyFaninLA
06-11-2013, 08:17 AM
I would like to see a reduction of teams before an expansion or move.


I am 100% behind this, to many teams. Bring the league down to 20 teams and it will be a better product and more profitable.

PhillyFaninLA
06-11-2013, 08:23 AM
Unless it's overwhelmingly worth it financially, the league isn't gonna do it. I'm not gonna act like I know exactly how much cutting out two teams (say, Charlotte and NO) helps or hurts the league financially, but yeah...

There's always going to be poor parity in the NBA (at least compared to he NFL and NHL) because of the power individual players have. One player can shape a franchise far more than any other sport. There are still going to be bottom feeders stuck at the bottom whether we have 30 teams, 32 teams, 28 teams or whatever.

I don't think it's as "watered down" as you think either.


The bottom feeders will be better, the league more competitive, and more competitive games, better playoffs, and more dynamic play with 20 - 25 teams. But at 30 or 28 I agree. The league would be more exciting and generate more revenue and the total difference maybe a wash because of a higher valued product but having fewer.

koreancabbage
06-11-2013, 08:24 AM
it would be a diss if they gave Vancouver its team back before Seattle - who is conveniently across the border.