NBA Expansion

[YogurtProducer]

Can someone explain the argument for Vegas to me? Isn't it mostly a tourist city?

Knights and Raiders both were successful I believe

[HabsAndDubs]

Canada East vs West too big a money spinner to give up.

Regardless of East vs West conference, they should schedule 4 games a season, every season

Montreal v Toronto is a natural rivalry, but Toronto v Vancouver, or “Canada east vs west” means nothing to us. Vancouver is far enough from most of the country that no one from one city cares about the other.

[HabsAndDubs]

Can someone explain the argument for Vegas to me? Isn't it mostly a tourist city?

Vegas, if you take away the strip, is still a pretty big city with its own local culture and community. Can’t speak on the raiders, but I know the golden knights have built a strong local fan base, and they also have that tourist boost on top of it.

Tickets are also affordable compared to shows on the strip, so it’s a good sell for families as well as tourists who want to catch a game.

[Klomp]

Am I crazy, or does it not make sense to put a team in Seattle AND Vancouver right now? They are basically neighbors, so you'd be cutting into the Seattle market.

Vegas would be the second location, I'm quite sure.

What name should they give a Vegas team? Something geographically related, hopefully, like the Outlaws or the Gamblers.

Do the New York and Philadelphia markets cut into each other? That's essentially the distance between Vancouver and Seattle, actually even closer together.

[righterwriter]

Am I crazy, or does it not make sense to put a team in Seattle AND Vancouver right now? They are basically neighbors, so you'd be cutting into the Seattle market.

Vegas would be the second location, I'm quite sure.

What name should they give a Vegas team? Something geographically related, hopefully, like the Outlaws or the Gamblers.

Do the New York and Philadelphia markets cut into each other? That's essentially the distance between Vancouver and Seattle, actually even closer together.

Yeah, but if you are adding two new franchises at the same time it doesn't make sense to put them so closer together.

[Klomp]

Am I crazy, or does it not make sense to put a team in Seattle AND Vancouver right now? They are basically neighbors, so you'd be cutting into the Seattle market.

Vegas would be the second location, I'm quite sure.

What name should they give a Vegas team? Something geographically related, hopefully, like the Outlaws or the Gamblers.

Do the New York and Philadelphia markets cut into each other? That's essentially the distance between Vancouver and Seattle, actually even closer together.

Yeah, but if you are adding two new franchises at the same time it doesn't make sense to put them so closer together.

While true, I think the NBA is realizing the geographic imbalance it has right now. They need to try to balance it out and there just aren't as many available markets in the western half of the US and Canada. After Seattle and Vancouver, you basically have Vegas and.....Kansas City?

While technically adding two new franchises, they're also adding two old ones too. These markets both had NBA franchises, I believe both have the remnants of a local fan base. It isn't starting from scratch.

[slicedbread2]

It'll be Seattle and Vancouver. To be honest a lot of people around here said it. With Vegas being the wild card (Which is still a huge possibility).

Why Vancouver over vegas

Easy: The NBA is more likely to use Las Vegas the way the NFL used LA as leverage to threaten markets that currently have NBA teams to pony up money in public funds to build a brand new stadium and if they don't comply, they risk losing their team, Think of what the league has been doing with using Seattle as a threat to markets such as Milwaukee and Sacramento. It's dirty business which makes me sick b/c I hate seeing fellow fans being treated like dirt, but sadly that's how it rolls.

Plus another attribute to bringing a team back to Vancouver is that they could turn the I-5 rivalry into a thriving one the way they do in MLS where the rivalry dates back to the NASL days in soccer. If Portland, Seattle and Vancouver were to be damn good at the same time, boy the money would be rolling in plus they could finally move Minnesota to the east where they belong and have them play in a division with Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit as a starting point like they do in the NFL and use to in baseball.

[jimmy keys]

Am I crazy, or does it not make sense to put a team in Seattle AND Vancouver right now? They are basically neighbors, so you'd be cutting into the Seattle market.

Vegas would be the second location, I'm quite sure.

What name should they give a Vegas team? Something geographically related, hopefully, like the Outlaws or the Gamblers.

Meh it's still a like three hour drive with a border between them. If they're too close to one another then maybe Milwaukee should relocate due to being too close to Chicago. Same with Sacramento to San Francisco, Philadelphia to New York etc. Pretty weak argument overall.

* edit I see another poster already quoted you and mentioned it. Bottom line is plenty of teams are within closer proximity to one another.

[righterwriter]

Do the New York and Philadelphia markets cut into each other? That's essentially the distance between Vancouver and Seattle, actually even closer together.

Yeah, but if you are adding two new franchises at the same time it doesn't make sense to put them so closer together.

While true, I think the NBA is realizing the geographic imbalance it has right now. They need to try to balance it out and there just aren't as many available markets in the western half of the US and Canada. After Seattle and Vancouver, you basically have Vegas and.....Kansas City?

While technically adding two new franchises, they're also adding two old ones too. These markets both had NBA franchises, I believe both have the remnants of a local fan base. It isn't starting from scratch.

I think its pretty well covered on the west coast. If you added Vegas and Seattle you'd have those two then Golden State, Sacramento, the two LA teams, and Portland.

I think Las Vegas is a definite win due to year round tourism and a pretty large urban population, as well. Plus, players would be happy to go there to live/play in winter.

[Klomp]

Yeah, but if you are adding two new franchises at the same time it doesn't make sense to put them so closer together.

While true, I think the NBA is realizing the geographic imbalance it has right now. They need to try to balance it out and there just aren't as many available markets in the western half of the US and Canada. After Seattle and Vancouver, you basically have Vegas and.....Kansas City?

While technically adding two new franchises, they're also adding two old ones too. These markets both had NBA franchises, I believe both have the remnants of a local fan base. It isn't starting from scratch.

I think its pretty well covered on the west coast. If you added Vegas and Seattle you'd have those two then Golden State, Sacramento, the two LA teams, and Portland.

I think Las Vegas is a definite win due to year round tourism and a pretty large urban population, as well. Plus, players would be happy to go there to live/play in winter.

I'm not talking about just the coast, I'm talking about the conference as a whole.

Look at the divisions (specifically the orange) and try to argue that it makes geographic sense.

[HeartBreakKid]

Vancouver is a no brainer. Since the 90s the Chinese population has become a more stable part of its demographics, and in general basketball has become more popular in Vancouver versus 30 years ago. Vancouver Grizzlies gear is already trendy, and they have a built in fan base from the 90s still (albeit it was small).

The Raptors haven't had decades of dominance to 100% secure all of Canada, so with time Vancouver might be able to grab the Western Canadian market, so it'd punch higher than it's very modest population - Vegas is pretty much landlocked. A lot of people from Vegas are from LA, so this makes sense when moving the Raiders to there, but a basketball team has to compete with the Lakers. Furthermore, Vegas has very little chance of becoming popular outside of Vegas unless they have a monster team (ala OKC).

Vegas would have been perfect 5 years ago when it had no sports team, but the NHL already jumped on that - NBA missed the boat on a great chance already.

Last but not least, Vancouver can have very natural rivalries with Portland, Seattle and Toronto. If they abolish conferences (which they should do) they could try to play up Vancouver vs Toronto for "Canada's team".

[vancity604]

as someone who lives in vancouver and was an original grizzlies fan i would to see it.... but one of the big issues will be the expansion fee. It will likely be well over 1 billion dollars US... maybe 1.5 billion. The local ownership group that owns the canucks and the arena would have to be involved... and I dont see them forking over that much money for a team.

[Cactus Jack]

Can someone explain the argument for Vegas to me? Isn't it mostly a tourist city?

You're Canadian so I'm assuming you follow Hockey.

Golden Knights ring any bells?

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

For those who think Vancouver couldn’t support a team, I urge you to watch this great documentary about Big Country, Bryant Reeves. They still love basketball down there.

Watch on YouTube

The Grizzlies’ first mistake was hiring Stu(pid) Jackson as GM. If they are granted a new franchise, I hope they hire someone competent. Would absolutely love to head down and catch some games.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Was Mexico city ever a chance at some point? i heard something a while ago that they were in the mix.

I think that would be the move with the most potential, as obviously with the biggest risk.
But a new US city is not going to influence NTV or international revenues, so it will be a net loss in the yearly revenue per team.
Not sure how incremental Montreal or Vancouver would be, but Mexico City would mean engering a new market

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

[Spens1]

clearly Vancouver, give them back the Grizzlies (bring back that jersey as well, one of the best in the league at the time) identity and Memphis can take on another one

[Ryoga Hibiki]

For those who think Vancouver couldn’t support a team, I urge you to watch this great documentary about Big Country, Bryant Reeves. They still love basketball down there.

Watch on YouTube

The Grizzlies’ first mistake was hiring Stu(pid) Jackson as GM. If they are granted a new franchise, I hope they hire someone competent. Would absolutely love to head down and catch some games.

Thank you, it was amazing!
Just feeling sad for all the stuff about him I was reading (and maybe writing...) at the time

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

[Clemenza]

Can someone explain the argument for Vegas to me? Isn't it mostly a tourist city?

Its more of a sexy choice imo. The city is not that rich and glitzy outside The Strip plus with covid hitting the casinos and hotels like it did I'm not sure there's enough disposable income to support another pro team. The Raiders are easy- only 8 home games with thousands of Raider fans coming in from Cali and opposing fans flying in as well. I wish an NBA team got to Vegas before the hockey team because now they would have to fill up the arena for both of these teams in the winter months. I'd easily go Vancouver over Vegas.

[JShuttlesworth]

c'mon Vancouver!

[LakerLegend]

looks like the second city is between Las Vegas and Vancouver https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/261102/NBA-Expansion-Unlikely-To-Be-Seriously-Considered-Until-2022

That’s not what that link actually says.

?

Las Vegas and Vancouver are the two cities that could get the second slot.