I am taking my comment from the bottom of the last thread and putting it up here as I kind of went on a rant, and we need a new thread anyways. :)
Some folks have expressed fear at having both the NHL (as in relocating the Phoenix Coyotes here) and the NBA enter the Seattle market next year. Something about it makes them nervous. I was found here making a simliar argument a week or two ago.
But think about it. This is the Coyotes… they are a playoff team. With a good ownership group this team is already ready to compete for the Cup. I don’t think this team would suffer in Seattle next year regardless of how well the NBA team was doing.
Now if you are arguing that NHL might take away some of the luster of a new NBA team, well, maybe. But the NBA team will very likely not be ready to shine for a couple/few years anyways. And these are different target fan groups, to some extent fan groups that don’t overlap (albeit not as distinct as Sounders / Sonics fans).
Is the argument that the sports entertainment dollar is limited and therefore it’s a risk to pit two fledgling teams against one another in this market? Well, if you make that argument then you are essentially admitting that the other side is right and that we can’t support both hockey and NBA here at the same time. I say bury that argument. This is a very strong sports market, and there are plenty of examples of other markets who support a similar number of big league teams.
Moreover the Coyotes will be shining from from the get-go. So I think they’re immune from that failed argument anyways.
Another point.. do you think that Hansen & co will fail to successfully market the NBA team to this city, to bring back those alienated fans into the fold? With his state of the art arena, and his rock solid ownership group.. it’s only a matter of time before the team itself gets competitive, and you know the legions of Sonics fans will put aside their grudges and forget their pain, and join with the rest of us in celebrating this newfound awesomeness in the 206. It’s pretty hard for me to imagine it going down otherwise.
Not to mention the arena location is miles above the Key location (well not physically speaking… but you get my drift). It will be so easy for so many fans to get to this new arena, I think that alone will boost interest.
But, then you’ll argue that TV revenue is the only true measure of success / long term viability. Well, do you think that Hansen, Ballmer and the Nordstroms (others?) will run out of money before TV revenues show the necessary growth to declare success? Aren’t we all imagining that Chris will build the next RSN in the Pac NW? I really fail to see how revenues won’t build pretty quickly under this new system.
What exactly is the failure that people are fearing here? That NBA will be slow to catch on? Maybe, I doubt it, but if it did so what? With this ownership group competitiveness is only a few years out. There’s no way fans don’t flock in huge numbers once that happens. Are people afraid that hockey fans WON’T support a playoff bound Seattle Totems? Give me a break….
Maybe it would work, but I think it’s pretty unlikely that the Coyotes move here. Quebec City is more ready to receive them than we are, I think. But many believe the NHL will add two new teams in a few years.
Also, people keep touting the possibilities of a regional sports network, but the Mariners would have to be willing to work with Hansen, right? That obviously hasn’t been the case so far.
Totems is a horrible name. If we’re stuck with that name, I’ll seriously consider remaining a Rangers fan.
Well, sounds like ye late nighters don’t be likin’ the Totems, aye? Better than “The Seattle Mets….” sounds like a theater group from NYC for chrissakes… :)
Can we just steal the Thunderbirds and become The Seattle Thunderbirds and just drop all this Mets vs Totems business? It’s almost as gotten bad as Luke vs Earl. ;)
Not necessarily. An RSN could get started with just NBA and NHL, if that happened, the M’s wouldn’t have much choice unless they really thought they could do their own thing.
I actually prefer Totems to Metropolitans (which is too archaic) and Thunderbirds (for obvious reasons).
As long as the name is plural and ends in ‘s’ (no Magic, Heat, Thunder, Wild, Lightning, Reign, etc.), I’ll be fine, though.
Umm look at the proposed realignment 7-7-8-8 14 teams west 16 teams east No way it would be 13 teams west 17 team east. This proposed realignment is going to happen. The NHLPA gave the thumps up on it.
I don’t think any team misses fans that adhere to teams based on namesake.
Too add no way the coyotes are moving to QC not with the 7-7-8-8 alignment. There is a reason why this realignment was a huge win for seattle.
I’ve always thought this ideal, I just don’t know how feasible it is. The Thunderbirds brand is excellent, the logo is excellent, etc., I just don’t think it pans out very well to take the brand. I don’t think the WHL team could survive both the loss of the brand and the introduction of the NHL to this market.
Sounders could join once the rights to root sports for game replay expires.
I doubt NHL will do that much to hurt the WHL teams. WHL tends to be more affordable then NHL games.
IMO no. Take a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_sports_network
There are plenty of RSNs that only have 1 or 2 teams. Look at ROOT.. all they have are the Ms. And Hansen & co could also attract college games to fill out the schedule.
Obvious reasons? Aside from the name being used already I see none? I think the name could be bought with enough flash, and as Sean noted above, I think they’d probably see the writing on the wall and decide to deband before getting squeezed out of the market by a larger NHL franchise…
The only problem I see with the T-Birds is that their colors too closely resemble what would probably be our biggest rival in the Canucks.
Stupid Vancouver should’ve stuck with their ugly black gold and red color scheme.
Obvious reasons? Aside from the name being used already I see none?
My mistake. I thought it would be obvious:
http://tinyurl.com/d5g2a7z
Thunderbirds have more history.
Anyway, I agree Totems isn’t a great name, but at least there’s a bit of a history behind it. I suppose you could say the same thing about Metropolitans, but it’s too long and too old-timey. Maybe Metros as a more modern variation…?
No matter what the variation, we’d be getting called the metrosexuals. I’d rather just not go that route.
No matter what the variation, we’d be getting called the metrosexuals. I’d rather just not go that route.
Meh. Wouldn’t bother me. I’ve already developed immunity to all the Seahags/Seachickens/Seafags/Seaturds/Seagulls/Seabags/Chickenhawks and whatever other insults rival NFL fans hurl at us.
Seattle Seamens
I watched that video at a stag party last summer… Care not to semen it again.
I’d like to point out that just about every person I told you guys to watch today really sucked. Like everyone across the board.
LETS GO TREY BURKE!!!!!
OKay, now back to the white boy sport that I only get interested in when people start fighting.
I’d take Metropolitans in a heartbeat over the Totems, but it’s not a name I feel strongly about or anything. I actually like how Seattle Chinooks rolls off the tongue, though I suspect there are many reasons why that would never happen. An interesting component of that name would be the Boeing connection like SuperSonics has.
Seattle No Fat Whip sugar free americanos?
They jerseys would be redone and cray cray.
Yep…. Bed time.
I was one of those expressing reservations, as Speedcat noted in a previous thread and he raised some interesting points. Also, no matter what, the NBA will be fine. Chris Hansen probably has at least a ~ 5 year “honey-moon” period to get the team competitive before worrying about a dip in ticket sales. 2-3 years in the key, followed by 2-3 years in the new Arena will be sold-out with Seattle filling it’s NBA appetite lost the past 5 years..
My worry with the NHL is two-fold. First of all, the venue is terrible for the NHL, and moving a team to Seattle next year will result in 2-3 years of NHL in a substandard NHL facility. Not the best way to introduce the NHL to Seattle. As Speedcat noted, the Coyotes are competitive and can make a legitimate play for the cup. This is a HUGE redeeming factor and really one of the few reasons I can this working in the same year. Next, how quickly can an NHL ownership group get the city excited about an NHL team? If an NBA team is approved in mid-April, that will leave a VERY SHORT period of time for a group (AKA, Levin) to acquire and relocate a team to Seattle. It’s also not much time for that ownership group to infiltrate the market and garner excitement. Maybe I am underestimating the pent-up NHL interest in Seattle but I think you will need time to really get the city ready for the NHL. To a lesser extent my next worry is corporate support/cable contracts. You will need a huge influx of corporate spend to support two teams in the same year. Maybe this will be easy, but most corporations do not have forecasted/budgeted marketing spend on Sonics/NHL. It’s a great target audience for most Company’s but it still a small period of time to organize several revenue streams effectively.
exactly. among other problems… associations with NYC are not good in this city :)
I don’t even care anymore about all the semantics. Just get the team up here, and you can call them the Bellevue Bungholes for all I care. Bring on the NHL!
OK - OK - - - Let’s get the NBA back now and worry about the NHL next. That’ what Hansen is doing. I’ll follow his lead on this one. The NHL will follow. We are so good at the Worry game. Me included.
We just need another huge-pockets ownership group and all these worries go away. Well, save for the timing thing. My hope there was that one of Hansen’s silver bullets is a deep-pockets NHL buyer sitting in the wings with a Coyotes PSA already in hand… yes, I am dreaming here. :)
That is awesome! I needed the laughs.
Seattle Poseidon Multimission Maritime Aircraft? Spmma?
OK, clearly time for bed…. ;)
Seattle Semians from the Airbud 3 movie?
The thing about Seattle…is that football is KING in this town (no pun intended) with the Hawks and Huskies…other than that, it’s a very niche, well supported town with a pretty fair cross-over. There is a HUGE underbelly of hockey fans in this region, it’s almost soccer-like in terms of participation. While small, there’s right around 600 or so full season ticket holders for the Canucks that live in the Seattle area, there’s probably even more hard core hockey fans than that that don’t have Canucks season tickets and refuse to invest in a “lesser” product in a league like the WHL (Tbirds and Silvertips). In addition, the Canucks are a very tough ticket to find, over a decade straight of sellouts…tell me that there won’t be a mad rush of Canadians that live just across the border to head to Seattle to watch the NHL…it will be incredible.
I can’t image the new NHL team adapting any of the historical hockey names in this market, and they certainly will not adapt the Thunderbirds identity-that is way, WAY too rooted with major junior hockey.
My point is, even if the NHL team has to play in the KeyArena for a couple of years, it wont matter. The novilty is too strong. There’s too many people in this region that are gung-ho for hockey and they know that a new building is on the horizon. It will be Sounders-like and it will be an absolute joy if it happens.
Football is king in this town, except for only what a little over 10 years ago when we were a baseball town?
Seattle might be a limited market when compared to the truly large markets, but this is a great sports town if the sports teams are at least putting forth an effort. If the Seahawks drop off at some point and the Sonics rise to the top, this’ll be a basketball town. If our hockey team goes for the Cup, this is a hockey town. This city’ll be there for every team.
Seattle Sundodgers
Pokes fun at our city’s image, pays tribute to Seattle sports history, and you Mets haters can complain about them being called the Dodgers. Win-Win-Win.
I already miss my hour of sleep. Good news is - - I’ll get it back when the Sonics are getting ready for the home opener @ the Key.
Yeah football is king until football were to hit a dry spell. Granted the way that team is constructed and the management in place with a deep pocket owner who more than has the brains to keep management in place. So lets say 8-10 years from now (maybe sooner or later) and then the Mariners or Sonics, or NHL team are growing strong then they will be the team. Heck maybe even the Sounders as MLS keeps growing in popularity nationawide.
I think getting an NHL team that is ready to compete right now could end up being a good idea. The Sonics no matter the quality of product will be popular early on. An NHL team that is winning games like the Coyotes can do then it will blow up and quick. I think people underestimate the popularity of hockey around these parts. I mean when the Silvertips opened they were quite popular. This is a populous enough region that it can be a great NHL market especially compared to some around the league.
Also since we are on the topic of NHL. I find it a little misleading that people in Sacramento are saying Burkle can do great things because of what the Penguins have become since they were bankrupt. The ENORMOUS difference is the financial risks involved in the NHL v. NBA. NBA is in a different stratosphere compared to the NBA in terms of obligations. Counting on someone to put a financially competitive NHL team together is one thing, doing so with the NBA is a whole different ball game.
Hopefully we get our wish and get both teams. I mean why not, if you get a chance to get both teams here then SWEET. NBA comes first of course unless some like Levine came in and sweetened the arena pot or if the NBA granted the E word.
Seattle can absolutely support the NBA, NHL, NFL, MLS, and MLB. There is A LOT of money in Seattle and from living here and visiting other cities in the USA extensively (and going to their pro sports games), I can just tell the fans and citizens of Seattle are way different from other cities. We really “attach” to our teams so the fan support is there (the Sounders are a perfect example of a so-called “niche” sport which does incredibly well in Seattle — it just doesn’t get the TV/Media time that the Seahawks, Mariners, and Sonics (used to) get). Hockey is really big up here, I have no doubt, no doubt, the NHL piece of the arena will be sold out. I mean, who wouldn’t want to go see hockey in an arena like the one proposed?
When I go to a pro sports game in Seattle, either the Mariners, Sounders, or Seahawks, I’m blown away by the wealth — from the cars the fans drive, to the quality of the stadiums, to the stars on the rosters.
Seattle is a really, really good market for pro sports teams.
Growing up, I loved the Sonics more than the Seahawks and the Huskies more than the Seahawks, however, there was nothing like talking about the games with my friends at school the next day. And I lived (and continue to live) well over 60 miles outside of Seattle.
My quesiton continues to be . . . who is Mastrov’s “whale”? Hansen has Ballmer. Who is the big pockets for Mastrov? He cannot afford the team even with the costs of the arena not being a part of his “bid” (which should not even be allowed as far as I am concerned because Seattle was not allowed to do so). His net worth is not more than $350M. He has to be a minority owner. If we knew who the whale is, we would have a better idea of the state of their “bid”.
And Burkle is a “buy low, sell high” type of guy. He may not be around very long with the arena if he can sell his interest and make money. How committed would he be to maintain and renovate the arena to NBA and team standards? That is where the Mariner and Seahawk leases are good for the community. They have to renovate and maintain the site for the length of the lease. That is a win-win for both sides.
Wel, the Kings are going to contribute to the arena in some form (who knows what that means though). I still am of the belief that this is just the final acts before the team moves and these are face saving maneuvers.
I liked my six year olds idea. If the basketball team is the Supersonics, the hockey team should be the Superheroes.
I like the Totems simply for the history and the logo possibilities.
Secondary option would be The Bombers (again, another nod to Seattle history).
And put me down on the side of get the NHL here ASAP.
The NHL will take off like the Sounders in this town. They will be the next hot ticket especially with a winning product like the Coyotes. The Sonics may struggle more than people think. The NBA shit in their own bed. The Coyotes only draw 13,000 in Phoenix so it would not be much worse in Seattle with limited seating. There is no reason for the NHL to keep the team in Phoenix and no reason to wait to put a team in Seattle. The NHL is better off starting in the Seattle market with a winning product rather than an expansion franchise since they are going head to head with the NBA and several other teams.
Its pretty easy to draw up a conspiracy theory about the NHL waiting for the NBA to Seattle to be finalized and a permanent building done and then they will soon follow. Its been well over a month now since the last (in a long line of) failed bid and its been crickets ever since.
Meanwhile, the NHL realigned in a way that if the Coyotes do relocate it is almost assuredly going to be somewhere in the west.
And the NHL will be a huge hit here. Strong built in fanbase and the Canadians will flood down here as well.
Im in town, going to try to make the Coyotes game Tuesday night vs the (Los Angeles) Kings if I can swing it. Glendale is pretty deep from where I am staying. Supposed to be a pretty nice stadium. I love hockey, would love to have both in town. I think the “newness” of both franchises can make them both viable if one or the other is not good on ice/court
Ya, well, neither of them are any good, thus the reason they’re up for sale, or at least a big reason. “attendance”, but you can’t really blame the people.
I think it is a real stretch from the corporate marketing side. Bringing 2 franchises in a single year would just be very tough to sell suites, season tickets and sponsorships. We also have Husky Stadium debuting this year and
It would be an awesome sports story but really a lot of strain on people who have already been straining for months/years. I think its better to stagger the franchises.
I would agree on its face but if you want to buy into a league you need to do it when there is an opportunity, Staggering would be ideal but there is no saying when another one will come along.
I also look at all the stuff Hansen has said to the city about the Key and how retrofitting it for the NHL seems to be an integral part of the plan and I think it may be sooner rather than later.
http://news.sportslogos.net/2013/03/08/mariners-dropping-teal-going-cream-and-gold-in-2014/
They won’t look like the stupid pictures they have altered (plus Vargas is gone…), but it could be terrible or amazing (not really sure until we know the final details). Mind you this is what the marketing firm is pushing, but we can assume there will be new M’s unis in 2014. I might have to spend a ton of money on just Seattle apparel since I will need all new stuff for the Sonics, Seahawks, M’s, and potentially a hockey team.
You also would get the extra public money right off the bat and ease the financial strain on the Sonics. Those two thing might outweigh having to worry about corporate dollars for a couple of years and have Arena Co worrying about more upfront money and trying to fill more arena dates. Just my two cents. Also, you do need to jump in when the chance is there and hope everything will work out.
While Hansen would not be the owner of an NHL franchise, my educated guess is that there already is a significant behind-the-scenes effort to buy the Coyotes. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where Ballmer again steps up as the deep-pocketed silent partner of a hockey ownership group, with Don Levin or whomever else as the operating owner/CEO. As we’re all aware, the arena MOU is set up with a major incentive to secure an NHL team: $200 million in public funding for construction as opposed to $120 million. And King County would be throwing the extra $80 million in if an NHL team is brought in, with Seattle on the hook for the $120m either way.
That’s a pretty strong incentive for all parties involved, for practical and public image reasons. The County’s contribution being almost entirely contingent on the NHL coming to Seattle is the strongest indication of how committed Hansen is to bringing the NHL to Seattle despite his not being the owner of a team personally. Any growing pains for Seattle as a hockey town or shoehorning an ice rink into the Key for two years are minor compared to the advantages of securing a team and building a local fanbase in anticipation of opening the new arena, plus the crucial $80m contribution from King County.
I’m partial to Totems as a name, though I’m biased because Totems was my high school’s mascot. Go Totes! Totems has the advantage of having local heritage and hockey history, and of respectfully acknowledging the indigenous culture of the PNW without being racist or patronizing. If not Totems, I like Seattle Steelheads for the hockey team (as discussed here: http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2012/2/8/2785337/name-that-team#91325613).
Hell, I’d only worry about the stadium needing an extra 3 to 4 thousand seats, half seats, half standing room areas for the next 3-5 years.
Phoenix was in the Western Conference Finals last year. The Glendale location is a WAY bigger impediment than the fact that they won two playoff series.
I tried using photobucket, and flikr to post a pic here, but still no go. Tried the good ol
[img] [/img] things as well. I don’t know of any other little codes to try. I know theres one with <href or whatever it is. Hmmm.
There is a point on the horizon where Bellevue and Seattle actually gain in population that a second arena on the east side is feasible, but that’s 10 to 15 years out.
In the near term, staggering would be good overall and do less harm to the Mariners (hate them all you like, but they are occupying a public facility, and that’s the extent of my homer perspective with those jokers). The health of the region is my #1 interest, bar none.
I do think we would take on both at once, but there would be a short term substitution impact, but to what? The economy is growing right now, locally it’s growing with some good paying industries.
Hockey, basketball, soccer, international sports are good for a metropolitan city.
All that said, I think we could absorb it. It would not be ideal, but you should not pass up the long term benefit because of short term stress.
The NHL owner would have to have a lot of cash, and be prepared to eat a few years of losing revenue (maybe a year or 2 beyond playing at the Key), plus paying for naming rights to the arena.
Tall order on short notice.
Fwiw, I tweeted Lester on the name, hopefully he blows that up, I’d love to read his thoughts on the name.
Hello everybody. Kept an eye on the site for some time. Thought I would put my 2 cents in for a hockey name…how about the SEATTLE SEAPUCKS, or something like the SEATTLE ICE SLIDERS. Maybe the SEATTLE ERUPTERS!
The fact that they got to draft Sidney Crosby didn’t hurt things either.
Quebec in the west for 2 years? More likely that coyotes go to Seattle. I hear NHL can get more $$$ in expansion from Quebec
NHL /nba would be more than enough to get a RSN going
Another possibility is that the Coyotes go to Portland which is ahead of both Seattle and Quebec City. Then Seattle and Quebec both get expansion franchises in a couple years.
In any event, I think the Coyotes move this year and stay on the west coast. The NHL would not have gone thru the realignment if they thought the Coyotes were going to move east. I expect we will hear the outcome in May, shortly after the end of the NHL season. There are no Glendale arena negotiations in process.
Portland would have had a NHL team by now, but it has been apparent that the arena owner does not want NHL there, just like the arena owners in Atlanta.
Sorry SpeedCat, I got plenty of love for you, but not a lot of love for that name. Don’t worry about my opinion though, I was “Tide” in HS, and “Vandal” in college….Not exactly great nickname heritage.
I was of a mind to stagger the teams but if you have to strike while the iron is hot, then so be it. Plus, the NHL team will get three to four weeks into its season before the NBA starts up. So they would be the lead story for a bit, any way.
Count me in on Totems as well, but if it’s not that, all I ask is that it’s not the Metropolitans name (because it’s stupid) and that it end in S. Sockeyes? Steelheads? Sea Lions? Lots of options.
I like the Seattle Steelheads. Sounds like an old school metal band!
Here are the two choices.
1. Get the Coyotes for the 2013-2014 season
2. Get a Expansion Franchise for the 2015-16 season.
Each has its pros and cons.
Expansion franchise staggers the pro teams, giving the NHL full attention instead of being divided between the NBA and NHL. Also gives the area/owner several years to get awareness up. The Con is with any expansion teams you don’t really do that well the first few years. Can the honeymoon period last long enough for the team to get to the playoffs?
Coyotes gives you a insta-cotender, with great front office staff, giving you the chance to have very successful seasons right off the bat. The issue here is, would NHL succeed if it had to share the spotlight with the NBA? Also playing in the Key is not ideal.
In the end. If you have the chance to get the Yotes, you have to do it. This is a good team with great front office staff, It would be great seeing what that team can do with the kind of $$$$ support that Seattle area could offer.