who deserves the next expansion team (playoff, hockey, win, cup)

[case44]

Originally Posted by Canes2006Champs

^ The Kings may not be in Sacramento much longer. The owners once threatened to move the team when voters rejected a new arena. Also the Grizzles and Hornets I hear are in danger of leaving.

You're kidding, Canes, right?? Sac is in trouble? I didn't know that. Memphis and N.O. might not be a surprise, but Sac? To think that just a few years ago, they were red-hot contenders.....

[Canes2006Champs]

Well maybe not anymore as a previous member posted, but their future in Sacramento was in ? not long ago. Hopefully, they will stay, and renew the rivarly they once had with the Lakers.

[MILWCITY]

We'll going by pure numbers as biggest city size in terms as metro would San Diego. San Diego has 3,000,000 people and only two pro sports teams. I think this would be a great fit but if your going to add a team in the west you need one in the east. Las Vegas would also be a great fit for an NBA team but San Diego deserves it more. Then for a new expansion team in the east I would pick St.Louis but since they can't support an NFL team I don't know how well they would do. You could throw in Pittsburg, Tampa, The Carolinas or even Connecticut.

[Canes2006Champs]

Honestly, unless the Kings, Warriors, Clippers, or Lakers move there, I don't think San Diego should get a team. Four NBA teams in California is enough IMO.

Pittsburgh is building a new arena so that could be a possibility. There's no way the Carolinas will have two teams, things are not going so well with the Bobcats, and a team anywhere else would have to compete with college hoops.

[Fred314X]

After the NBA put a team in Orlando, the myth of "market size" was exposed as, basically, a lie. Orlando has a team because lots of tourists go there, creating an audience for basketball all season long. I propose applying this same logic and putting an expansion team in Honolulu. Lots of tourists from the continental US, and it's automatically the only game in town. Yes, the logistics of road trips involving flights to Hawaii is frightening to contemplate, but where there's a potential audience, there's a way!

[Scott Summers]

I don't think Charlotte needs a team they need to go to Seattle. I say after five years (when OKC lose interest) give Cincinnati the team. I don't know how they'll realigned the East (the Cincy squad would be Eastern) but I know it'll be weird; I laugh a little when I see Oklahoma City in the Northwest Division so I guess Cincinnati would be in the Southeast division.

[Buckeye in SC]

Originally Posted by BravoFan

I don't think Charlotte needs a team they need to go to Seattle. I say after five years (when OKC lose interest) give Cincinnati the team. I don't know how they'll realigned the East (the Cincy squad would be Eastern) but I know it'll be weird; I laugh a little when I see Oklahoma City in the Northwest Division so I guess Cincinnati would be in the Southeast division.

I think it's funny how people like to blame the fans for Charlotte's problems, they have horrible ownership and have not had a good team since they were reestablished. If you remember back in the early 90s when they had Larry Johnson & Zo, they use to pack out the 'Hornet's nest' and it was an intimidating arena to play in. Putting a winning product on the court seems to solve a lot of problems - just look at my Cavaliers. Before Lebron was on the team, they barely drew 10,000 fans a night, now pretty much every game is sold out. Charlotte's metro can definitely support an NBA franchise, 1.5 million people, it's just a matter of putting a decent product out on the floor night in and night out. Plus North Carolina as a state loves their basketball,

As for Cincinnati, think it could work, but I think they are content w/their 2 college teams in the Bearcats & Xavier to provide their basketball entertainment. Although UC just isn't the same w/out Huggins there.

[Frank the Tank]

There should absolutely be no expansion - the league is diluted enough already. If a team is moved (i.e. the Kings), then Seattle should have absolute first priority as a market that has just lost a team (very unfairly, IMHO). After that, Las Vegas is next in line (assuming that the league gets over its fear of proximity to the casinos). All other markets can make arguments, but there isn't a compelling reason why one would be that much better than the other based on demographics (if they have funding for a brand new arena, that would be a different story).

[Pug Life]

Originally Posted by MILWCITY

We'll going by pure numbers as biggest city size in terms as metro would San Diego. San Diego has 3,000,000 people and only two pro sports teams. I think this would be a great fit but if your going to add a team in the west you need one in the east. Las Vegas would also be a great fit for an NBA team but San Diego deserves it more. Then for a new expansion team in the east I would pick St.Louis but since they can't support an NFL team I don't know how well they would do. You could throw in Pittsburg, Tampa, The Carolinas or even Connecticut.

I'd love to see a team in SD, but it's not likely to happen. SD is not an indoor sport kind of city. People want to be outdoors here and I can't see 17,000 San Diegans paying $75 a piece to go to see a basketball team lose. That and the fact that the Chargers might move because the city wont build a stadium...imagine how difficult it'd be to get an arena built for the new San Diego bball team.

[NewToCA]

I think Kansas City and St Louis would be good places to put teams. The Kings were in KC when I lived there in the mid 1970's, having moved from Cinci. I also remember the Hawks in St Louis. Anyhow, I think both are still NBA cities.