RealGM

I personally wouldn't mind another basketball team in New York kinda like what LA has with the Lakers and Clippers. At least the city would have an alternative to what they currently are dealing with.

Another city that could accomodate a team in the East is Tampa, which already has teams in the NFL, NHL and MLB.

Out West obviously Las Vegas comes to mind.

Come on man...You know we are getting the Brooklyn Nets. Stop being stupid (walks Gr3en back to the knick booard)

Vegas, St Louis, Kansas City all make the most sense to me.

I wouldn't complain if there were one in Cedar Rapids, either--but that's because I live 20 minutes away.

Seattle.

Oklahoma city used to bring in big crowds for the hornets. They should get a expansion team.

Brooklyn718 wrote:Come on man...You know we are getting the Brooklyn Nets. Stop being stupid (walks Gr3en back to the knick booard)

haha. yeah i know about that...but it isn't final yet. So New York gets 3 NBA teams. I dont mind. More products to choose from.

Tom Baker wrote:Seattle.

That's a pretty good answer, but I'm inclined to think that in the pacific northwest, Stern would be inclined to return to Vancouver before Seattle.

Anaheim

Springfield.

well vancouver DESERVES a team since they had their team stolen from them. like memphis is doing better than vancouver would have..???



and seattle should not be going anywhere. we gatta have the sonics!

las vegas

I'd really hate to see the Sonics move out of Seattle. Oklahoma Sonics just doesnt sound right. OKC should get a brand new team. Then you move the Hornets to the weak East(where they geographically belong). And balance it out with another franchise in Vancouver or Las Vegas.

Maybe not the most deserving, but it sure would be nice to have a team in Baltimore.

And to really make me happy, they could just move the current Wizards back there.

Chris435 wrote:las vegas

you remember how the all star game in vegas turned out right?
i'll say ok city

STL.

I read on the Grizzlies history on wikipedia that they were close to moving to St. Louis until the NBA rejected it because the buyer from St. Louis openly stated he'd move away from Vancouver. Heissley got them instead w/ a promise to remain in Vancouver, but we all know how that turned out.

I would vote for New York but with a little different style.

I would like the current knicks to be retracted and then an expansion team to officially begin the second later also named the Knicks. I'm pretty sure an expansion team version of the Knicks would be better than the current version.

1) Saint Louis
2) San Diego
3) Seattle

/thread

Tampa is a terrible sports town, to whoever suggested it. St. Louis, on the other hand, is arguably the best sports city in the world.

virginia beach

Cigamodnalro wrote:1) Saint Louis
2) San Diego
3) Seattle

/thread

Tampa is a terrible sports town, to whoever suggested it. St. Louis, on the other hand, is arguably the best sports city in the world.

It really is not, great sport cities sell a crapload of tickets even when their team sucks. The Rams were blocked-out basically every single home game this year. Great sport cities like NYC for example still sell out Knicks games or Ranger games when they aren't doing well. St. Louis struggled selling out the Blues and Rams games when they are bad.

St. Louis is the best baseball city in the country tied with NY and Boston, but definitely isn't the best sports city. Maybe when they are winning and all the bandwagon fans come back they are, but when the teams are down you find out how little the number of true fans there are. I mean you could get Rams tickets that weren't even in the last couple of rows this year for $10.