Imagine the Oilers in Seattle
Tuesday · Sep 25 · 2012 | 1:07 AM PDT
Sorry, I just can't. It's ridiculous and we all know it.
In the midst of a lockout and negotiations to have a new arena built in downtown Edmonton, the bigwigs from the Edmonton Oilers paid a visit to Seattle today — just to poke around and such.
Monday, Seattle's City Council officially approved a plan to move forward with the much-discussed new arena project. That's great but the entire thing still hinges on securing an NBA or NHL franchise. And all the cities that already have them really like them and don't want us to take them. So that's the trouble.
To help alleviate that trouble, apparently, the Oilers brass was in town for "meetings" and a stop at KeyArena — down the street from me. (Oh, and to watch the Seahawks beat the Packers unconvincingly, as well.) Oilers fans hate it.
This is a stone that kills two birds. On one hand, it's the Oilers saying, hey Edmonton, you don't want to buy us a new arena, we'll find a new city that will. (Even though they really won't.) And on the other, it's Seattle trying to convince itself that there are potential teams out there to snatch up. (Even though there really aren't.)
Trying to follow it all is a nightmare. So I count on Chris Daniels. As a Seattleite, I just want to wake up one morning and find out we have a hockey team and an arena. And that I have season tickets.
But then I'd just have to wake up again.
Reader Comments (16)
I would love to see Seattle get a team. The idea of a new franchise, new name, new logo, new jerseys ETC. makes me giddy. BUT, I would really DESPISE the idea of this coming at the expense of a Canadian city, or even another northern U.S. city.
I am not as sceptic as you as to if Seattle will one day get a team. We all know Bettman hates those small canadian cities (especially when they steal their team from a big US market like Atlanta or Phoenix) and honestly despite being canadian, I get that. Winnipeg and Quebec sure don't look as good in a negotiation package for a TV contract as Atlanta, Phoenix or Miami do.
So I'm sure Bettman would be greatly relieved to move to Seattle. Sure it's not as big as Miami or Phoenix, but it's waaay better than 700k (french-speaking) Quebec. And if Seattle is good enough for NFL, MLB, MLS and NBA... it's good enough for NHL.
One thing is sure, Seattle is currently Bettman's first choice. Moving to Quebec would be the very last solution for a near-dead team on the artificial respirator. Seattle is a less painful move for him. May not be right now... but eventually I believe Seattle will get his team.
You do have a hockey team. The Thunderbirds. And they're actually playing hockey right now.
Kevin: That's fair enough. But the T-Birds play in Kent and I've been to WHL games. It just isn't the same as the pace and skill you find in the NHL. (Am I being a hockey snob?)
As an Edmontonian and Oilers fan who is completely for a new arena I can see where the Katz Group would go out and poke around for a few reasons, one is to see what other cities in the process of planning or building a new arena are doing (ie. What model did they use, who pays for what, who gets what, what does the facility offer) that way when it comes to negotiating things with Edmonton's city council they have examples of what other places do, but I also see it as the Katz Group entertaining secondary options in the event an agreement with the City of Edmonton can't be made and ultimately lose the Oilers.
If you look back at the way Edmonton has handled business relationships within the city it doesn't take a genius to understand why other cities like Calgary have become bigger hubs for big business.
That being said, there is a possibility (however, slim) the Oilers are packed up and moved - people using the whole Phoenix situation as one reasoning the League wont move the Oilers? Well, that's a poor anology in itself because the Coyotes are Bettman's pet project claiming that hockey can be sustained in any market in the US. He'll never allow the League's board of Governers to relocate them because it immediately becomes the highest indication of how badly he has failed.
This is a major PR fail for the Edmonton ownership group. This is nothing more than a scare tactic by them to sling Edmonton City Council into a corner to get a new arena but all it really did was get a few people giddy and a ton of people royally peeved off.
Moving/expanding a team to Seattle makes sense for Bettman league wise for a number of reasons. Seattle will have primary dibs on hating the Canucks with a much needed geographical rivalry.... Seattle fits nicely into the Northwest or Pacific divisions... it's not a small market Canadian city....
But what doesn't make sense is, and we've seen this already with about half dozen other teams....is that just because it's a big US market, doesn't mean it will be successful. I know this blog is from a freshly freshly imported Seattleite, (and we all appreciate what you do, Chris, that's a fact) but if the city could choose as a whole, would they choose the basketball team or the hockey team? If the majority thinks basketball is more important (as is my suspicion) then that would make the Seattle Coyotes/Hurricanes/Blue Jackets/Devils/Islanders pro team #4 of 4 on the depth chart. Behind the Seahawks, SuperSonics, and Mariners in that order.
I'm here to be proven wrong, but I'm not convinced the NHL could truly succeed in Seattle. Compared to the aforementioned teams that might move there, however, Seattle would be a welcome treat.
@neonix, The Canadina cities do look good for TV because, Canadians are the main audience for hockey. The majority of the U.S. is more concerned with the NFL and NBA at this time of year and though there are still Americans out there who watch, and even though us Canadians like other sports, Canadians live for hockey. The news would light up if Quebec got a team back because Canadians like to see more Canadian content and because it's a big part of history. Also, a team in Seattle would have to compete with the Seahawks, the new NBA team that is the main goal for this arena, and even the Canucks to a degree.
Also, Bettman hating Canada is media BS.
If it wasn't made clear in the post, this is just leverage for the Oilers. Everyone knows that there is a lot more money to be made in Edmonton.
Not being a snob, Chris. Maybe Seattle would be on a different pricing scale than we get here, but in a city like Vancouver you can watch the Giants play from the best seats in the house for $25. Or watch the Canucks from the nosebleeds for $80. Is the increased pace and skill worth 3-4 times as much to you? Perhaps it is. I'd rather buy a 9-game pack for the Giants for around $150 and have 1-2 nights out with friends each month of the season than one good seat at one Canucks game (where the team may or may not show up to play the entire game) though. Around here, the stadium atmosphere seems better at the junior games too.
Winnipeg built an arena and snatched the Thrashers, a team that nobody thought that would move until only a few months before they actually moved. Quebec City is currently building an arena, Kansas City has already one and Seattle plans to build one. I'm pretty certain that the Coyotes will move in the next few years to one of these markets and that Columbus will soon follow. Let's not forget the Islanders that are still looking for a new home. Barclay's Center in Brooklyn is currently not an option for them: it would be the smallest arena to host a NHL team with under 15,000 seats! Otherwise, why not making an expansion to 32 teams? If the NFL can do it, why not the NHL? And I'm pretty certain the MLB could also expand to 32 teams one day.
@Bob Columbus isn't currently a problem. Just because a team is bad doesn't mean the market is. Columbus is a big northern based market. Yotes are a toss up. It all depends on the new owners and whether or not the fans keep coming out. Islanders, even though they do have a lot of history, I could see as a possibility if they can't sort out the arena problem. I like the idea of expansion teams. (even though it will probably never happen, I have always dreamed of a semi playoffs for the bottom half of the league. :P)
I don't know the owners of the Oilers, whether they're from Alberta at all, but it this move does come to light, it would just be another blow into the illusions of people who think sports are about passion and all those values traditionnaly attached to it (effort, sharing etc). I mean, this is Edmonton. Farthest north of any big city on the continent, winner of oh so many Stanley cups not too long ago, classical jerseys and colours, and what with Gretzky's legacy and stuff?
I'd love to see a team in Vancouver but please, please, just send it the Panthers or the Coyotes (aren't they more panthers and coyotes in the Pacific northwest anyway?).
Yes, there may only be 700K in QC, but you watch the Habs sell out EVERY SINGLE GAME, you can't tell me there aren't another 30K or more hockey fans in that province. The Nords had the fan base, but didn't have the management they needed back then.
However, I could not see them get a franchise @ the expense of Edmonton, who is one or two roster moves away from a deep playoff run, and team with a history like that doesn't get a free pass out of town, even if they might be struggling. This honestly seems like a power move to get the city of Edmonton to pony up the cash for the new pond yesterday.
Keep giving the "dub" a try Chris, you may just find the players' passion far exceeds that of the NHL millionaires on many nights! Maybe just a tiny bit of a snob, lol.
Chris: The Dub is pretty awesome. And the Puget Sound is lucky enough to have 2 teams (Everett SilverTips and Seattle Thunderbirds) playing there. Even for the Dub, that's fairly unique. No other market in the league has that.
Mind you, there's still quality professional hockey a few hours north. You should check out the Abbotsford Heat of the AHL.
@Fordaith 700k is for the Quebec city "metropolitain" area. Montreal has a 3,8 millions metro area and pretty much all the corporations in the province. But I'm not saying Quebec wouldn't sell out. I know they would, I live in that province.
But what people don't seem to understand is that filling an arena is only a small portion of a team's financial success. You have to have major corporations in the city, money for merchandise, for sponsorship... Obviously the TV station pays the team way less to air their games (Even if 100% of the city's population watched the game, it would still be less than in Montreal where games reaches 800-900k audience). Advertisers also pay less... and so on and so on...
Look at teams like St-Louis, Ottawa or Minnesota. They all sell out. They're all in city where hockey is popular. They're all in bigger markets than Quebec City but they're all in fragile situation. I'm not saying Quebec would necessarily fail, I'd love to see another team in my province... I just saying I get why it's not Bettman's first choice.
@Gandalf: Columbus is not only a bad team but it also has been experiencing financial problems for many years. According to Forbes, the team lost $13.7 million during the 2010-2011 season. Only the Coyotes lost more money ($24.4 millions). The Oilers? They made $17.3 millions! And guess what: the Lightning and the Ducks also lost more money than the Islanders!
I don't see the Oilers moving: they want to own their arena because they don't want to pay a rent (which they would pay if they move to Seattle), so they are just putting pressure on the city council. However, the next team to move, apart from the Coyotes, I guess it will be a team that no one here is currently thinking of, like the Lightning or even the Ducks.