Headshot77
Bad Photoshopper
- Feb 15, 2015
- 3,972
- 1,975
Having the AHL in Tijuana would be effing sick
Thoughts on San Diego?
- Thread starter SImpelton
- Start date
Why not though? What's the argument? And no, QC existing doesn't count as an argument.
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
It's a properly served market in terms of hockey with 2 teams already and neither setting any attendance records. The Kings and Ducks are enough to satisfy the demand of the market.
Additionally San Diego is not a good sports town.
Takuto Maruki
Ideal and the real
By that metric, neither is Miami, Phoenix, or any other city in California/Arizona/Florida where northerners congregate, either because of work, or because of snowbird reasons.
HisIceness
This is Hurricanes Hockey
In theory, sure. I would imagine the climate would be attractive for free agents. Geographic rivals in Los Angeles and Anaheim, and San Jose.
But if I had to guess, if the league had a "wish-list", as in who they daydream about a potential owner from a prospective market calling them up showcasing interest, San Diego would rank behind Houston, and probably behind Atlanta/Phoenix with ownership that's worth a damn.
But if I had to guess, if the league had a "wish-list", as in who they daydream about a potential owner from a prospective market calling them up showcasing interest, San Diego would rank behind Houston, and probably behind Atlanta/Phoenix with ownership that's worth a damn.
SImpelton
Registered User
- Mar 1, 2018
- 601
- 731
By the same argument Western Canada doesn't need 4 teams with its tiny, insanely spread-out population, so be careful how you word things
SImpelton
Registered User
- Mar 1, 2018
- 601
- 731
What
by that argument we can relocate the Flames. Edmonton would properly serve both markets. You can easily get to Edmondton from Calgary with just a few hours driving after all. the Oilers can definitely properly serve Calgary right? After all Calgary can't possibly be its own prosperous market if you can easily reach it from another market with a few hours of driving right?
Hey maybe we can kill 2 birds with one stone and move them back to Atlanta! That market is definitely NOT properly served after all!
Also Montreal properly serves QC so that's a relief to know that that question is permanently settled forever and there will be no new Nordique team for the rest of eternity! Whooo, fantastic! Only problem, now what we all gonna talk about when nothing's going on?
For that matter New York really doesn't need two teams, whoops, better move the Islanders!
And the Rangers gotta go too, don't worry it'll be fine, the Bruins properly serve the market and if that's not enough for you there's always the Sabres! The Devils can help serve the market too, after all it's right next door!
Also... Ottawa... well, enough said, The LEafs have it covered, off you pop!
Geeze, we could get rid of sooooooo many Canadian and Northeast Corridor teams with that logic! Oh what fun!
Last edited:
You're right, but do you want to do this same song and dance with Phoenix again? San Diego would be a better option with less competition.
Bixby Snyder
IBTFAD
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
And the owner is…
(Um, blerg)
Mind you, do we know who even would own the suburban Atlanta team?
Do not be surprised if this incident kills expansion hopes for a while.
(Um, blerg)
Mind you, do we know who even would own the suburban Atlanta team?
Do not be surprised if this incident kills expansion hopes for a while.
I think SoCal is too saturated with 3 NHL teams. If there was an ownership issue with the Ducks or Kings and they needed a 'bug out' option then possibly SD works. Highly doubtful it would be a first choice for either team and unlikely any time soon.
SImpelton
Registered User
- Mar 1, 2018
- 601
- 731
The LA market is saturated but if you think LA draws a lot of its support from San Diego I dunno what to say. The two markets are distinct. SD is a border town with its own character, a lot of military presence, and is a very big market in its own right.
Put another way -- the Padres aren't exactly suffering from the presence of 2 baseball teams in metro LA.
sneakytitz
Registered User
Yes, and he was in NYC at NHL's HQ with Tillman's group the day before the Arizona to SLC news dropped.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
It was ignored before, so I'll try again why San Diego won't work. It's because of Stan Kroenke.
The arena in San Diego is the Pechanga Arena. It's home to the AHL Gulls, Originally built in 1966, but last year Stan Kroenke's group announced they were the major investor in a redevelopment of the arena to include housing, mixed use development and an entertainment district. You know - all the bells and whistles new arena developments come with., and all the alternate streams of income an NHL team needs.
But then here's the problem. The only owner that makes sense in San Diego is Stan Kroenke - but Kroenke already owns the Avalanche.
It doesn't make sense to build a second brand new arena in San Diego, which is large but not that large. It also doesn't make sense for anyone else to purchase a team and pay rent to Stan Kroenke.
The arena in San Diego is the Pechanga Arena. It's home to the AHL Gulls, Originally built in 1966, but last year Stan Kroenke's group announced they were the major investor in a redevelopment of the arena to include housing, mixed use development and an entertainment district. You know - all the bells and whistles new arena developments come with., and all the alternate streams of income an NHL team needs.
But then here's the problem. The only owner that makes sense in San Diego is Stan Kroenke - but Kroenke already owns the Avalanche.
It doesn't make sense to build a second brand new arena in San Diego, which is large but not that large. It also doesn't make sense for anyone else to purchase a team and pay rent to Stan Kroenke.
I actually think San Diego would be a great market for the NHL (no offense intended to Anaheim fans but if there had never been a team there & I was asked to choose between ANA and SD? I'd choose SD without even blinking). That said.....
This argument makes less and less sense given that for 2 years in a row, non hockey markets won the Stanley
I'd love to retire the "team in <non traditional market> won a Stanley Cup and so therefore that means it's a good idea" in this forum. This is the BUSINESS of hockey. Any NHL team can win the Stanley Cup if the roster is built right and the location has nothing to do with it. Do southern fans really think that northern fans' "no/less hockey teams in the South" argument was premised on whether or not a Cup could be won there? Of course not.
This argument makes less and less sense given that for 2 years in a row, non hockey markets won the Stanley
I'd love to retire the "team in <non traditional market> won a Stanley Cup and so therefore that means it's a good idea" in this forum. This is the BUSINESS of hockey. Any NHL team can win the Stanley Cup if the roster is built right and the location has nothing to do with it. Do southern fans really think that northern fans' "no/less hockey teams in the South" argument was premised on whether or not a Cup could be won there? Of course not.
SImpelton
Registered User
- Mar 1, 2018
- 601
- 731
It is all but impossible for a genuinely unhealthy franchise to win the Cup.
Hell it's really really hard for a healthy franchise.
Certain fans of Northern teams hold newer Southern teams to impossible standards even though half the northern teams don't meet those same standards in any given year.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
My brother in christ, please look at the distance between San Diego and LA.
You're implying that a team can't win the Stanley Cup and still be a money loser without revenue sharing. And I think that's ridiculous.
And I'm not knocking any of the southern teams. I'm saying that when it comes to the BUSINESS of Hockey, winning the league championship doesn't prove any superiority of markets (it can help to improve the market after the fact, no question). Are you suggesting that if the Panthers assembled this team in Houston, it might not have won because the market would have magically made the team more sucky?
A poverty team not winning a title because of their poverty is usually owed as much if not much more to their owners not leveraging revenue sharing and being poverty owners than "oh s___, our market sucks, guess we can't build a winner!"
EDIT: I should say this probably bothers me because it's such a straw dog argument against traditionalists/relocationists. "Let me make up an argument no one is calling for so I can win some easy points." I've *never in my life* met a fan who was "anti teams in the south" based on the logic of "they'll never win there" or "no one will want to play for them." Other arguments that I might disagree with, yes. But not those.
About 100-110 miles as the crow flies. To put it in my own terms, the equivalent of driving straight across the state of MA. Too far to commute, but close enough that there would be some fan overlap between the cities.
I've been to SD a few times, I can't imagine a team working there, it's a fairly small market. Then you need ownership, an arena, etc. They can feel free to prove me wrong though. The Padres seemed to draw a pretty good crowd though so who knows.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Totally agree about the distinct markets and that LA is saturated. Never said otherwise. I just think three in that area isn't gonna work and it is unlikely either the Kings or Ducks move down the I-5. The NHL is slowly moving away from being a Gate-driven league and both the Ducks and Kings struggle to get eyeballs on TV, Streaming, etc. as things stand now.
Is it impossible? Nope. Anything is possible but I feel highly unlikely in the near future.
As for the Padres... Baseball does well in California due to it's very rich history. Pre-MLB expansion into California, the PCL was a very prominant league. Two of those PCL teams were called The San Diego Padres and the Los Angeles Angels ;-).
The Padres are also, as many have shared on this board, the only pro team in SD and their previous owner was spending big on the roster. The Padres had 'lean' times when the Chargers were in SD. Maybe that's different today but no NFL team is looking to relocate to SD. They'd have nowhere to play.
I think the MLS team will do fine. Not sure which other sport will be able to jump into SD at this point. Maybe the Sacramento Kings when the city goes underwater by the end of the century.
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
If New York City were at the other end of Massachusetts, imagine the traffic.
It’s not a short drive. You will end up in a half-hour backup on “the 5” and the traffic reporters, if they address it at all, will call it “normal slowing.” I’ve also been in enough I-95 backups to make comparisons.
I know a lot of people on this board WANT to consider 3 teams in Southern California as oversaturation. It is not. You want your market to have a team. I get that.
HOWEVER…
…the culture of San Diego is so outdoors that the only person driving a “build an arena” narrative with real money is from out of town and already owns an NHL team in a market he is NOT leaving. The only real exception is the student section for San Diego State basketball.
That’s why I asked who the owners are. That’s what should really drive this discussion. And right now, the population of willing markets is the Atlanta suburbs. That’s not enough to expand. You need three or four willing owners in order to create competition for two teams… or overthrow American capitalism and start from scratch.
I love SD and will retire there some day. I would put a team there if there wasn't one in Orange county
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
Anaheim and San Diego are close on a map, but they're entirely different markets and when there are competing sports they have seperate and unique fanbases. I honestly don't think San Diego being added to the NHL would in any way hamper the existing SoCal draws or that SD would be hurting drawing only from say south of San Clemente.
If there's really an interested party that wants to buy in is another matter. The rumored arena plan feels more like it's using the allure of NHL or NBA teams as a carrot to get support whereas in reality they'd be happy having it as a venue without a permanent pro tenant.
Ducks vs Gulls would be an interesting annoying water fowl rivalry, though. And San Diego would climb to the top of my road city that I most want to visit list. Just an insanely pleasant city.
If there's really an interested party that wants to buy in is another matter. The rumored arena plan feels more like it's using the allure of NHL or NBA teams as a carrot to get support whereas in reality they'd be happy having it as a venue without a permanent pro tenant.
Ducks vs Gulls would be an interesting annoying water fowl rivalry, though. And San Diego would climb to the top of my road city that I most want to visit list. Just an insanely pleasant city.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
I mean there's a lot of "no true Scotsmen" type reasoning going on here.
I would definitely argue that the 2006 Carolina Hurricanes or the 2019 St Louis Blues were not doing great financially. If you say they don't count as "genuinely unhealthy" then what teams are - besides Arizona I guess?
Winning the cup is hard no matter what. But I think we've seen that as long as you aren't playing games just to get to the salary floor that any team has a shot at winning the cup, and that the wealthiest clubs (your NYRs, TMLs or Habs) have no better shot at it than anyone else.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Speculation: 2023-2024 General Lightning Discussion - Part 4- Latest: Stammertime91
