Thoughts on San Diego?

[Rcknrollkillnmachine]

There was some mention on Puck Podcast a few months back that the Ducks could move out of Anaheim and relocate to SD. If anyone could dispel or substantiate that would be appreciated.

In terms of Arizona I doubt the NHL go back there in my lifetime. They have hockey in the desert now with Vegas and Arizona's stink will permeate for many years but who knows.

Also bring back the Nordiques.

 

[aqib]

There was some mention on Puck Podcast a few months back that the Ducks could move out of Anaheim and relocate to SD. If anyone could dispel or substantiate that would be appreciated.

In terms of Arizona I doubt the NHL go back there in my lifetime. They have hockey in the desert now with Vegas and Arizona's stink will permeate for many years but who knows.

Also bring back the Nordiques.

They signed a 25 year lease extension that runs through 2048. They aren't going anywhere.

 

[Tawnos]

There was some mention on Puck Podcast a few months back that the Ducks could move out of Anaheim and relocate to SD. If anyone could dispel or substantiate that would be appreciated.

In terms of Arizona I doubt the NHL go back there in my lifetime. They have hockey in the desert now with Vegas and Arizona's stink will permeate for many years but who knows.

Also bring back the Nordiques.

No idea what the presence of a team in Las Vegas has to do with a team in Phoenix.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

There was some mention on Puck Podcast a few months back that the Ducks could move out of Anaheim and relocate to SD. If anyone could dispel or substantiate that would be appreciated.

In terms of Arizona I doubt the NHL go back there in my lifetime. They have hockey in the desert now with Vegas and Arizona's stink will permeate for many years but who knows.

Also bring back the Nordiques.

San Diego could work, but Orange County has significantly more people, corporations, and money. Zero chance that an ownership group voluntarily and sanely makes that trade.

Plus, what aqib said.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

San Diego could work, but Orange County has significantly more people, corporations, and money. Zero chance that an ownership group voluntarily and sanely makes that trade.

Plis, what aqib said.

And let's not forget, they just unveiled uniforms that make them look like traffic cones on skates. Why would anyone go to that extreme if they were going to leave Orange county?

 

[RayMartyniukTotems]

San Diego Ice Dogs or Mariners would be a good name even if the WHA had a team in San Diego way back when...plus the Mexicans could gravitate to hockey and love just as most of us do...Love to see a NHL team in San Diego in the next 3-4 years

 

[Tawnos]

San Diego Ice Dogs or Mariners would be a good name even if the WHA had a team in San Diego way back when...plus the Mexicans could gravitate to hockey and love just as most of us do...Love to see a NHL team in San Diego in the next 3-4 years

Except for a specific situation like Winnipeg, I highly doubt we'll ever again see a new pro sports team choose a name that exists in another league.

 

[Bostonzamboni]

No idea what the presence of a team in Las Vegas has to do with a team in Phoenix.

But Vegas is only around the 40th largest tv market, whereas Phoenix is about 11 or 12 and likely to rise still?

I'll have to double check.

NHL probably still needs Phoenix, just like it needs Houston and Atlanta. Can't realistically have no teams, or just one team, in all of Phoenix, Houston and Atlanta for the next tv deal.

Yes, Vegas could rise, but why still only the 40th largest tv market after so much migration there in recent decades? Buffalo is about the same sized tv market. Heck, Portland, Sacramento (I think), Tampa, Miami, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Columbus, St. Louis, Salt Lake City are much bigger tv markets than Vegas! (Austin is about a smallish 40th also, fyi.)

Most important, Phoenix already has a small but established fan base, for decades, and great potential if they can ever play in a desirable location and arena (never had both at once ..ever) and for once, qualified owners. It can and will likely be a relative success there. By then, won't the population be even larger, even if only 2 percent would care about hockey.

Denver was a failure with the NHL Colorado Rockies, a horrible short existence in the 70s, but given another chance as the metro grew, won immediately and it's been a success (other than several bad attendance years before the recent Cup )

Phoenix part 2 might sort of mirror Atlanta's population rising so much since the Thrashers’ departure? From what we always read here, Atlanta is already a different and bigger region now versus then, same with Phoenix in 10+ more years.

Plus, most of the stigma of the Coyotes will likely have dissipated in 10 or more years, and the city will hopefully want to embrace a brand new toy.

Hmmm...but...by the time the
NHL can get back there, won't the WNBA's Phoenix Mercury be even more popular than now, especially with the sudden ascent of the WNBA?

 

[aqib]

But Vegas is only around the 40th largest tv market, whereas Phoenix is about 11 or 12 and likely to rise still?

I'll have to double check.

NHL probably still needs Phoenix, just like it needs Houston and Atlanta. Can't realistically have no teams, or just one team, in all of Phoenix, Houston and Atlanta for the next tv deal.

Yes, Vegas could rise, but why still only the 40th largest tv market after so much migration there in recent decades? Buffalo is about the same sized tv market. Heck, Portland, Sacramento (I think), Tampa, Miami Raleigh, Columbus, St. Louis, Salt Lake City are much bigger tv markets than Vegas! (Austin is about 40th also, fyi.)

Most important, Phoenix already has a small but established fan base, for decades, and great potential if they can ever play in a desirable location and arena (never had both at once ..ever) and for once, qualified owners. It can and will likely be a relative success there. By then, won't the population be even larger, even if only 2 percent would care about hockey.

Denver was a failure with the NHL Colorado Rockies, a horrible short existence in the 70s, but given another chance as the metro grew, won immediately and it's been a success (other than several bad attendance years before the recent Cup )

Phoenix part 2 might sort of mirror Atlanta's population rising so much since the Thrashers’ departure? From what we always read here, Atlanta is already a different and bigger region now versus then, same with Phoenix in 10+ more years.

Plus, most of the stigma of the Coyotes will likely have dissipated in 10 or more years, and the city will hopefully want to embrace a brand new toy.

Hmmm...but...by the time the
NHL can get back there, won't the WNBA's Phoenix Mercury be even more popular than now, especially with the sudden ascent of the WNBA?

Vegas had five advantages:

1) they were the first pro team in Vegas
2) They were the only pro team for 3 years
3) College sports barely exist there
4) They got good right away
5) The city has an average of 400K tourists there every day

Atlanta has one major advantage and that is they have people (two separate groups) willing to privately finance an arena. No one on this board is more against the NHL going back to Atlanta than I am. However, if someone is willing to risk $1 billion of their own money on an arena there isn't much I can say.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

Vegas had five advantages:

1) they were the first pro team in Vegas
2) They were the only pro team for 3 years
3) College sports barely exist there
4) They got good right away
5) The city has an average of 400K tourists there every day

Atlanta has one major advantage and that is they have people (two separate groups) willing to privately finance an arena. No one on this board is more against the NHL going back to Atlanta than I am. However, if someone is willing to risk $1 billion of their own money on an arena there isn't much I can say.

For the NHL, Vegas was about like striking oil in your backyard. The city had no pro sports teams when the Knights started, and as the Knights are celebrating their 10th anniversary there will be three professional teams there (assuming the A's ballpark goes off as announced they will open the 2028 season in Vegas). Of course, Oakland is out of teams to relocate there so we'll see what happens from here on out.

It may have been luck, but for once the NHL was at the forefront.

 

[Jets4Life]

Except for a specific situation like Winnipeg, I highly doubt we'll ever again see a new pro sports team choose a name that exists in another league.

Not sure why you bring up Winnipeg. They were the Jets in the NHL for 17 years before they left for Phoenix. Aside from that, naming teams that were once used in the NHL, WHA, or other pro sports leagues, happens all the time.

The Colorado Rockies of the MLB were named after the defunct NHL team. The original Jets were named after a junior team. The Houston Oilers were nearly resurrected in 1998, until an Edmonton group managed to keep them in the city at the 11th hour.

Tons of NFL franchises have either been resurrected, or were allowed to use their previous names. I can see it definitely happening again.

 

[aqib]

Not sure why you bring up Winnipeg. They were the Jets in the NHL for 17 years before they left for Phoenix. Aside from that, naming teams that were once used in the NHL, WHA, or other pro sports leagues, happens all the time.

The Colorado Rockies of the MLB were named after the defunct NHL team. The original Jets were named after a junior team. The Houston Oilers were nearly resurrected in 1998, until an Edmonton group managed to keep them in the city at the 11th hour.

Tons of NFL franchises have either been resurrected, or were allowed to use their previous names. I can see it definitely happening again.

I think he was saying that resurrecting the Jets name was an exception to the rule. You wouldn't see a team use a name that another major league team even in a different sport uses. So like Utah wouldn't be the Utah Hornets since there is already a major league team called the Hornets.

I am not sure that's always the case because the Sacramento Kings had trademarked the name Anaheim Royals if they had wound up moving there.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

I think he was saying that resurrecting the Jets name was an exception to the rule. You wouldn't see a team use a name that another major league team even in a different sport uses. So like Utah wouldn't be the Utah Hornets since there is already a major league team called the Hornets.

I am not sure that's always the case because the Sacramento Kings had trademarked the name Anaheim Royals if they had wound up moving there.

That is an interesting bit of trivia. The team was the Royals at one time, going back to the mid-40s. First the Rochester Royals, then the Cincinnati Royals. When they moved to Kansas City they became the Kings since the baseball team is the Royals. Then they moved to Sacramento and kept the Kings name. I guess the idea of being the Anaheim Kings with the LA Kings nearby and a cross-town rival to the Anaheim Ducks, presumably who they share an arena with, was too much.

The franchise keeps moving to markets where an existing team already has the same name.

 

[aqib]

That is an interesting bit of trivia. The team was the Royals at one time, going back to the mid-40s. First the Rochester Royals, then the Cincinnati Royals. When they moved to Kansas City they became the Kings since the baseball team is the Royals. Then they moved to Sacramento and kept the Kings name. I guess the idea of being the Anaheim Kings with the LA Kings nearby and a cross-town rival to the Anaheim Ducks, presumably who they share an arena with, was too much.

The franchise keeps moving to markets where an existing team already has the same name.

I wonder why the football Cardinals were ok to keep using the name when they went to St Louis.

 

[dj4aces]

I wonder why the football Cardinals were ok to keep using the name when they went to St Louis.

Wikipedia says the owners of the NFL team sought permission from the owners of the MLB team. It doesn't mention the permission actually being granted, but for the team to keep that name while in St Louis, it seems to me that would be the case...

 

[Tawnos]

Not sure why you bring up Winnipeg. They were the Jets in the NHL for 17 years before they left for Phoenix. Aside from that, naming teams that were once used in the NHL, WHA, or other pro sports leagues, happens all the time.

The Colorado Rockies of the MLB were named after the defunct NHL team. The original Jets were named after a junior team. The Houston Oilers were nearly resurrected in 1998, until an Edmonton group managed to keep them in the city at the 11th hour.

Tons of NFL franchises have either been resurrected, or were allowed to use their previous names. I can see it definitely happening again.

I think he was saying that resurrecting the Jets name was an exception to the rule. You wouldn't see a team use a name that another major league team even in a different sport uses. So like Utah wouldn't be the Utah Hornets since there is already a major league team called the Hornets.

I am not sure that's always the case because the Sacramento Kings had trademarked the name Anaheim Royals if they had wound up moving there.

I was saying what @aqib understood.

The Rockies aren't an equivalent example to a hypothetical San Diego Mariners NHL team because the Rockies name wasn't in use by another major pro team at the time, even in another city. If, for whatever strange reason someone wanted to name themselves the Expos, Supersonics, Barons, Seals, etc... they'd do it.

As for the Anaheim Royals... it's also a bit of an exception for the reasons @Sgt Schultz mentioned. But also, keep in mind, things have changed with this stuff. Branding is such an enormous part of these franchises now. The Chicago Cardinals moving to St Louis and keeping the name would never happen today.

 

[aqib]

Wikipedia says the owners of the NFL team sought permission from the owners of the MLB team. It doesn't mention the permission actually being granted, but for the team to keep that name while in St Louis, it seems to me that would be the case...

Thinking back it wasn't uncommon in that time period for football teams to have the same name as baseball teams in the same city. There were two football teams called the Brooklyn Dodgers, one called the New York Yankees, the Washington Commanders were originally the Boston Braves, and of course you had the New York Football Giants. So St Louis having both teams called the Cardinals wasn't unusual at the time, but its noteworthy that it was the last instance of this happening in the same city.

Other than the Rochester Royals becoming the KC Kings the most recent instance I can think of where a team adopted a name aready in use elsewhere was the Texas Rangers,

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I wonder why the football Cardinals were ok to keep using the name when they went to St Louis.

Exclusive ownership of one's unique brand in sports wasn't as big of a deal back then, and the money involved in pro sports was much smaller, too. If the Arizona Cardinals moved to St. Louis again in 2025, my full and complete expectation is that the football Cardinals would need to change their name in order to do so.

As a slightly related example, a decade or so back the Sacramento Kings were wanting to move to Anaheim, and as part of that they were preemptively preparing to rename themselves back to their original team name, the Royals, so as to not cause any brand confusion with the LA Kings in the same(-ish) market. Nobody would've really blinked an eye from Kansas City's perspective in baseball, but the same metro area having two Kings was recognized as a bit too much.

 

[aqib]

Exclusive ownership of one's unique brand in sports wasn't as big of a deal back then, and the money involved in pro sports was much smaller, too. If the Arizona Cardinals moved to St. Louis again in 2025, my full and complete expectation is that the football Cardinals would need to change their name in order to do so.

As a slightly related example, a decade or so back the Sacramento Kings were wanting to move to Anaheim, and as part of that they were preemptively preparing to rename themselves back to their original team name, the Royals, so as to not cause any brand confusion with the LA Kings in the same(-ish) market. Nobody would've really blinked an eye from Kansas City's perspective in baseball, but the same metro area having two Kings was recognized as a bit too much.

It's probably a matter of time before the mods steer us back to the main topic but it probably would have been better if KC had picked another name for their baseball team so Montreal could have used Royals since the Dodgers minor league team was called the Montreal Royals.

 

[Jets4Life]

The Rockies aren't an equivalent example to a hypothetical San Diego Mariners NHL team because the Rockies name wasn't in use by another major pro team at the time, even in another city. If, for whatever strange reason someone wanted to name themselves the Expos, Supersonics, Barons, Seals, etc... they'd do it.

It does not matter, as the NHL had the rights to the "Colorado Rockies" name. They allowed the MLB team to use it. If the NHL had said no, then the MLB team would have been forced to call themselves a different name.

Teams are free to call themselves "expos, Supersonics, etc if they want, as long as they are from a different city. It just cannot be the "Montreal Expos" or Seattle Supersonics." They would need permission from the MLB or NBA. The Winnipeg Jets were allowed to use the "Jets" name, since the NHL owned the name and allowed them to do so.

Chicago Cardinals moving to St Louis and keeping the name would never happen today.

It definitely could happen, if permission was granted. No offence, but I do not think you understand trademark laws. Back in 1994, the CFL tried to use the name "Baltimore Colts" for their franchise, as the NFL Colts had moved over a decade prior. The NFL send a "cease and desist" letter to the CFL, which forced the team to change it's name mid-season to the Baltimore CFLers, and settling on "Stallions" the following season.

 

[Jets4Life]

Exclusive ownership of one's unique brand in sports wasn't as big of a deal back then, and the money involved in pro sports was much smaller, too. If the Arizona Cardinals moved to St. Louis again in 2025, my full and complete expectation is that the football Cardinals would need to change their name in order to do so.

Not necessarily.

A case can be made that the NFL already used the "St;Louis Cardinals" name, before moving to Arizona, so the NFL can always argue that they are entitled to use the name Cardinals in St.Louis, since they already had a franchise called the St;Louis Cardinals, and were just resurrecting it. It would really depend on if the MLB Cardinals were granted exclusive use of the "St;Louis Cardinals" name by the NFL.

 

[Howie Hodge]

The San Diego Gulls WHL (1966-1974) Team drew well during their existance, and were being looked at by The NHL as a potential expansion site in the early 70's.

Now demagraphics change, as they did in Cleveland, where the AHL Barons were very popular intil the early 70's, so I can't empirically state they're a potential NHL site these days.

But, the prospect of San Diego, I wouldn't think, is a complete stretch.

 

[Tawnos]

It does not matter, as the NHL had the rights to the "Colorado Rockies" name. They allowed the MLB team to use it. If the NHL had said no, then the MLB team would have been forced to call themselves a different name.

Teams are free to call themselves "expos, Supersonics, etc if they want, as long as they are from a different city. It just cannot be the "Montreal Expos" or Seattle Supersonics." They would need permission from the MLB or NBA. The Winnipeg Jets were allowed to use the "Jets" name, since the NHL owned the name and allowed them to do so.


It definitely could happen, if permission was granted. No offence, but I do not think you understand trademark laws. Back in 1994, the CFL tried to use the name "Baltimore Colts" for their franchise, as the NFL Colts had moved over a decade prior. The NFL send a "cease and desist" letter to the CFL, which forced the team to change it's name mid-season to the Baltimore CFLers, and settling on "Stallions" the following season.

Ah, I see what's happened here. You've (very obnoxiously) taken my saying that teams *won't* take a nickname that already exists in another major pro sport as me saying that a team *can't* do it. You're talking about the law. I am talking about the branding decisions that organizations would make in 2024. It doesn't matter if it would be legal and all they need is permission to be granted if they wouldn't be asking for that permission in the first place.

You need look no further than Utah HC's name search. Here, you've got a team name that has 30 years of history in the SLC market and it's not even under consideration. Why not? I'm not going to sit here and say that the fact that there's a Grizzlies in the NBA is the only factor, or even the strongest one. It still is a factor though. They want to have a totally unique brand in the major pro sports landscape.

So again, it's not that an NHL team in San Diego cannot be called the Mariners. It's that they won't be.

 

[aqib]

It does not matter, as the NHL had the rights to the "Colorado Rockies" name. They allowed the MLB team to use it. If the NHL had said no, then the MLB team would have been forced to call themselves a different name.

Teams are free to call themselves "expos, Supersonics, etc if they want, as long as they are from a different city. It just cannot be the "Montreal Expos" or Seattle Supersonics." They would need permission from the MLB or NBA. The Winnipeg Jets were allowed to use the "Jets" name, since the NHL owned the name and allowed them to do so.


It definitely could happen, if permission was granted. No offence, but I do not think you understand trademark laws. Back in 1994, the CFL tried to use the name "Baltimore Colts" for their franchise, as the NFL Colts had moved over a decade prior. The NFL send a "cease and desist" letter to the CFL, which forced the team to change it's name mid-season to the Baltimore CFLers, and settling on "Stallions" the following season.

I am not sure that the NHL still had that name. The Colorado Rockies weren't exactly the Brooklyn Dodgers or even Hartford Whalers. I don't recall Colorado Rockies throwback jerseys being a thing. So if they weren't using the trademark and didn't renew it, it might have expired by then.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

Sometimes it is not dog-eat-dog as people think. When Houston was awarded an NFL franchise in 1999, the fans chose the name "Texans." That name has been used by a number of teams in the past, but the big stumbling block was the name was owned by the Kansas City Chiefs, who had been the Dallas Texans previously. When the Houston ownership contacted Chiefs' owner Lamar Hunt, his response was basically sure, we aren't using it. If any money changed hands, it was either kept quiet or was whatever token amount that was required.

As for San Diego, if they got an NHL franchise, I can pretty much guarantee they won't be named the Padres, Chargers, Clippers, or Aztecs. But, as I have said, I doubt it gets to that point, and that is not necessarily a reflection on San Diego.