Share
597
Senior MemberSenior Member
597

PostMay 21, 2018#101

dweebe wrote: ↑
May 21, 2018
9ine Runner wrote: ↑
May 21, 2018
 Pro Sports are finished in this town.
So the Cardinals and Blues are going to leave? Got ya.
Where did I say you'd have to head west on 70 for MLB and NHL?

(We did almost lose the Cardinals to Milwaukee though actually)

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑
May 21, 2018
9ine Runner wrote: ↑
May 21, 2018
 Pro Sports are finished in this town.

We're entering the golden age of St. Louis basketball, emerging as a real hotbed, and we're an afterthought for the NBA.

Oh and Seattle is definitely getting both NBA and NHL.

As far as KC goes, the NBA is a star driven league and isn't afraid of smaller markets. KC has passed us by, you'll have to make trips west on 70 for NFL, MLS and NBA.
what has KC passed us by in? 800,000 less people metro area? no where as big of a corporate base that buys suites.

That 678,246* population gap isn't anywhere significant as STLiens like to believe it is, especially considering surrounding cities that would have no problem traveling to KC. An Omaha, Springfield and even St. Louis. Having only 1 Fortune 500 company doesn't seem like it's slowed down KC yet.

cgeenen wrote: ↑
May 21, 2018
9ine Runner wrote: ↑
May 21, 2018
 Pro Sports are finished in this town.

We're entering the golden age of St. Louis basketball, emerging as a real hotbed, and we're an afterthought for the NBA.

Oh and Seattle is definitely getting both NBA and NHL.

As far as KC goes, the NBA is a star driven league and isn't afraid of smaller markets. KC has passed us by, you'll have to make trips west on 70 for NFL, MLS and NBA.
Relax man it, was one tweet from a KC homer. The NBA doesn't want to over-saturate a small market. If STL gets a good ownership group they have as good or better chance than KC for the NBA. Scottrade will be better than the Sprint Center by then too.

The NBA has said no to Bill Laurie. They said no to the ABA Spirits. They said no on the Hornets before they relocated to New Orleans. They said no in the late 80's when a Football Cardinals stadium was being proposed in the Riverport area.

When the Hawks moved to Atlanta in 1968 there were only 12 teams in the league, since then they've added 18, soon 20.

50 years no team. In the 13 years St. Louis had an NBA team we hosted 3 all star games and went to 4 Finals and won a Championship. Then the NBA threw us away.

Finding an ownership group isn't a problem. Dr. Chaifetz has been trying to buy an NBA team for some years now. Dave Steward would give the NBA it's long overdue 2nd Af-Am majority owner. DeWitt even made a passing thought about liking to see the NBA back in town.

The problem is the NBA wanting to be here. It's the same with courting amazon, flights or anything else we have an uphill battle overcoming how others see us. With sports we're stuck with a narrative of being a dying sports town that only supports baseball. Sure, context matters but the general public doesn't do nuance very well.

Oh and that guy from KC was an NBA Scout talking to an NBA executive, I think that's a little more than just being a KC homer.
17
New MemberNew Member
17

PostMay 21, 2018#102

^ I honestly think the most likely scenario is the NBA adds Seattle and Vegas and then moves Memphis to the East. Maybe the best move is to try and get Memphis if they ever try to relocate.
3,757
Life MemberLife Member
3,757

PostMay 21, 2018#103

All of this being said, I honestly believe STL is a 3 sport town. We should have NFL or NBA, MLS possibly. When it comes to the BIG 4, we should have 3. That is a fact and all of this 2-sport town narrative is BS IMO. That narrative is a case of the same old-same old STL low self-esteem thing. StanK didn't help our self-esteem. The bad PR in recent years doesn't help that either, but in the end, we are a top 25 media market, top 25 in population, nice corporate community and overall, a great sports town. STL checks all the boxes.
7,801
Life MemberLife Member
7,801

PostMay 21, 2018#104

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑
May 21, 2018
 All of this being said, I honestly believe STL is a 3 sport town. We should have NFL or NBA, MLS possibly. When it comes to the BIG 4, we should have 3. That is a fact and all of this 2-sport town narrative is BS IMO. That narrative is a case of the same old-same old STL low self-esteem thing. StanK didn't help our self-esteem. The bad PR in recent years doesn't help that either, but in the end, we are a top 25 media market, top 25 in population, nice corporate community and overall, a great sports town. STL checks all the boxes.
The NFL can scr*w off for all I care if this is the new pricepoint for their stadiums.

Rams' New Inglewood Stadium Reportedly Now Costs More Than $4 Billion
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/277 ... -4-billion
3,757
Life MemberLife Member
3,757

PostMay 21, 2018#105

^While I share your feelings on the NFL, I think Inglewood will be an outlier. This stadium will be the crown jewel of the NFL, home to their offices, a palace for Super Bowls and other huge events. This stadium and Stank's deep pockets are the reason the NFL screwed STL. This stadium is not your typical venue. City's like LA, NY and a few others can do that. The majority of venues are on the level of what was going to be built on the North Riverfront or lower tier than that.

Screw the NFL. . . . Didn't mean to shift from NBA to NFL.
5,704
Life MemberLife Member
5,704

PostMay 21, 2018#106

Believe St Louis could easily be a 4 sport town without the NFL but would take a Blues ownership/or a new group that wants to own both Blues and a NBA franchise expansion team to begin with. As it will take both NHL and NBA playing Enterprise Center for St Louis to be compelling to the league in my opinion - essentially, owners who can spread overhead, media production, marketing and stadium costs over two teams and therefore have the more money for the players in mid market. One advantage say St Louis over KC. The tough part, it will take a deep pocket owner willing to give up some of their wealth to pay the NBA expansion to make it happen.

Second, no doubt a MLS stadium can happen West Downtown.. I tend to believe their is enough deep pockets in the region to make a private MLS soccer stadium happen if someone takes a plunge and essentially everything is in place to hand any ownership group a great downtown location on the west side of Union Station with great access whether it be transit or car.
1,982
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,982

PostMay 22, 2018#107

9ine Runner wrote: ↑
May 21, 2018
 (We did almost lose the Cardinals to Milwaukee though actually)
Are we seriously talking about something that happened about 75 years ago because of unstable (and as it turned out criminal) ownership at a time when we would have still had another team to fall back on?

PostMay 22, 2018#108

dredger wrote: ↑
May 21, 2018
 Believe St Louis could easily be a 4 sport town without the NFL but would take a Blues ownership/or a new group that wants to own both Blues and a NBA franchise expansion team to begin with. As it will take both NHL and NBA playing Enterprise Center for St Louis to be compelling to the league in my opinion - essentially, owners who can spread overhead, media production, marketing and stadium costs over two teams and therefore have the more money for the players in mid market. One advantage say St Louis over KC. The tough part, it will take a deep pocket owner willing to give up some of their wealth to pay the NBA expansion to make it happen
This is what kills me about what happened with the Grizzlies. It was all set up to succeed. Bill Laurie bought the Blues and the lease to now Enterprise Center, but he desperately wanted an NBA team there. Blues fans look back upon him as an awful owner, but he was actually one of the best owners we've ever had until he suddenly wasn't. No defending the way he exited the ownership, but prior to that, he was all in on winning a Cup, and nearly delivered. Little St. Louis had one of the highest spending teams in the league thanks to Bill.

But I digress. I really mentioned that because had he gotten the NBA team, he may have never abandoned his ownership of the Blues. And he was so close to getting that NBA team. He had the Grizzlies signed, sealed, but he couldn't get them delivered. The NBA mandated a 5 year buffer of staying in Vancouver, and he walked away. The next year they were sold and moved to Memphis.

I still think the NBA can work in St. Louis, but that felt like our chance, and it got off the hook.
Second, no doubt a MLS stadium can happen West Downtown.. I tend to believe their is enough deep pockets in the region to make a private MLS soccer stadium happen if someone takes a plunge and essentially everything is in place to hand any ownership group a great downtown location on the west side of Union Station with great access whether it be transit or car.
I'm at a point where I think we should wait American soccer out. The MLS just doesn't seem primed for long-term success to me. Something has to give. And I think that something will ultimately be a realization that they HAVE to accept a relegation setup with the USL. And when that comes to be, we'll already have our team.

I'd like to see if we can get St. Louis FC into a smaller city stadium, and we can start worrying about a major sized soccer stadium whenever the MLS and US Soccer is finally ready to admit the need for that system. It's a long play and those are never fun, but I think it's the right move.
2,053
Life MemberLife Member
2,053

PostMay 22, 2018#109

I could not agree more. A 12-15K stadium for STLFC shared with SLU's team in Grand Center would be pretty amazing, and if we create an awesome team/atmosphere/culture it could be an amazing way to wait for a chance to be relegated up once they find a way to make that happen.
1,792
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,792

PostMay 22, 2018#110

jstriebel wrote: Something has to give. And I think that something will ultimately be a realization that they HAVE to accept a relegation setup with the USL. And when that comes to be, we'll already have our team.
Relegation will never happen in American sports, and i believe the European ones will shift away from it eventually as well. No one pays a quarter billion dollars (let alone the multiple billions they go for in Europe sometimes) for a team and accepts the possibility of being relegated to a 2nd tier because of a few bad seasons. Likewise these promoted teams get to bounce into the big money club for free just because they went on a hot streak. Also lets consider what would happen if Timbers 2 got the promotion into the MLS. Now you have two teams with shared branding and even worse a shared small market competing in the same league. Its not EVER going to happen. You might as well advocate a community corporation ownership structure in the vein of the Green Bay Packers. These are non starters and dead ideas and no amount of internet wishing is going to change it.

I think its far more productive to think of other ways to generate interest in late season games among the lower ranked teams. First and foremost the most effective strategy is keeping the teams competitive through draft allotments and salary caps.

One thought is to simply let every team into the playoff. Then low rank teams would be fighting to move up to play the lower high rank teams giving themselves greater opportunity to advance.

If you must have a down select post regular season, then maybe allow the teams who don't make it to the playoffs a slightly higher cap the following year.

Maybe consider awarding the next years USLPro championship game to the highest ranked team who doesn't make the playoffs.

None of these are as financially terrifying as relegation but that's sort of the point. Sports owners aren't in it to lose after all. Most of them spend to near their cap limit so what is the point in holding the Sword of Damocles over their head.

If an owner is truly not investing in their team and is a financial drag on the league then it seems reasonable that there be an ownership clause that allows the league to force a sale of a franchise with sufficient votes from the other franchisees. To me that is sufficient motivation especially if an annual gross ticket sales threshold made a vote obligatory. That would be hugely embarrassing public dressing down for any ownership group.
7,801
Life MemberLife Member
7,801

PostMay 22, 2018#111

jstriebel wrote: ↑
May 22, 2018
9ine Runner wrote: ↑
May 21, 2018
 (We did almost lose the Cardinals to Milwaukee though actually)
Are we seriously talking about something that happened about 75 years ago because of unstable (and as it turned out criminal) ownership at a time when we would have still had another team to fall back on?
Yes. Because apparently we're going to soon lose all of our pro teams.

PostMay 22, 2018#112

I don't think St. Louis can be a 4 sports town as long as the Cardinals are the monsters they are. You look at other midsized cities with 4 pro teams and none of them have a baseball team that draws like ours. 2017 MLB attendance.

St. Louis: 3.5 million attendance (2.8 million metro area pop)
Minnesota: 2.0 million attendance (3.6 million pop)
Detroit: 2.3 million attendance (4.3 million pop)
Colorado: 2.8 million attendance (2.8 million pop)
Phoenix: 2.1 million attendance (4.8 million pop)
(Yes I know Dallas, Miami, DC etc: but those are over 5 million.population metro areas.)

If the Cardinals were consistent low to mid 2 million yearly attendance for baseball, we'd easily have 3 or 4 pro sports teams.
5,704
Life MemberLife Member
5,704

PostMay 22, 2018#113

pattimagee wrote: ↑
May 22, 2018
 I could not agree more. A 12-15K stadium for STLFC shared with SLU's team in Grand Center would be pretty amazing, and if we create an awesome team/atmosphere/culture it could be an amazing way to wait for a chance to be relegated up once they find a way to make that happen.
This is a not bad plan and undoubtly require buy in from SLU or maybe change up schools with Wash U. Getting STLFC out of Fenton flood plain and into the city/more central location w transit seems like a no brainer to me. Would you put it along Grand on south side of viaduct where second ownership group was pushing for a stadium? Would their be a spot to shoe horn it into a grander Foundry/Armory development plan even if it means some buildings come down?

The other idea I like but think some existing buildings would need to be bought out and torn down is across from the Enterprise Center itself on the other side of Clark if a stadium would fit into the corner. Pricey proposal for a 12-15k stadium but tucked in between two metrolink stations, Amtrak, kitty corner to Union Station & hotels and active sports scene and you can still play friendlies down the street at Busch stadium

Ok, took that off topic but at least stayed in the realm of pro sports. Add on question. Will Taylor family of Enterprise ever go all in on a pro sports franchise. The type of all in that goes beyond being an ownership group, or spend a couple million to put the name on a stadium but buy an NBA and NHL all in?
7,801
Life MemberLife Member
7,801

PostMay 22, 2018#114

dredger wrote: ↑
May 22, 2018
 Ok, took that off topic but at least stayed in the realm of pro sports. Add on question. Will Taylor family of Enterprise ever go all in on a pro sports franchise. The type of all in that goes beyond being an ownership group, or spend a couple million to put the name on a stadium but buy an NBA and NHL all in?
No. They're not the pro sport type either from an ownership or just fans point of view. As its been explained to me Andy Taylor is a mild hockey fan at best.
597
Senior MemberSenior Member
597

PostMay 22, 2018#115

jstriebel wrote: ↑
May 22, 2018
9ine Runner wrote: ↑
May 21, 2018
 (We did almost lose the Cardinals to Milwaukee though actually)
Are we seriously talking about something that happened about 75 years ago because of unstable (and as it turned out criminal) ownership at a time when we would have still had another team to fall back on?
Seriously talking? No. When did I say the Cardinals or Blues were in jeopardy of leaving town? I didn't.

It was just a bit of trivia.
4,553
Life MemberLife Member
4,553

PostMay 22, 2018#116

^You said, “Pro Sports are finished in this town.”

That would require at least two teams to leave. Pretty clear.
597
Senior MemberSenior Member
597

PostMay 22, 2018#117

wabash wrote: ↑
May 22, 2018
 ^You said, “Pro Sports are finished in this town.”

That would require at least two teams to leave. Pretty clear.
Finished as in done. As in we have all the teams we're going to have and won't be adding any additional ones.

Clarified myself no less than 5 times now.

Pretty clear.
4,553
Life MemberLife Member
4,553

PostMay 23, 2018#118

Prob would have helped to be clear the first time around.
597
Senior MemberSenior Member
597

PostMay 23, 2018#119

Probably would have helped to understand the English language first. Finished is a past tense verb, not slang. That's basic 4th grade grammar.
4,553
Life MemberLife Member
4,553

PostMay 23, 2018#120

This whole misunderstanding makes sense if you simply didn't understand what you were writing or how to properly express it.

If you were using finished as a past tense verb you wouldn't write "are" in front of it. To use it as a past tense verb you would write something like, "Pro sports (you'd also not want to capitalize sports) finished their reshuffling in this town." That's your past tense verb. Writing "Pro sports are finished their reshuffling in this town." wouldn't be correct.

The way you wrote it, "Pro sports are finished in this town." Finished acts as an adjective, describing an attribute of pro sports. Your usage is comparable to "Pro sports are done in this town." Again, "done" being the adjective.

Again, simple mistake. Although perhaps one covered at the 5th grade level.
7,801
Life MemberLife Member
7,801

PostMay 23, 2018#121

Since Pro Sports are finished in this town I don't know why we are talking any more. :roll:

Are there any weak/struggling NBA teams that are looking to move or want new arenas and might not get them? Wasn't Louisville looking to poach someone?
2,053
Life MemberLife Member
2,053

PostMay 24, 2018#122

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑
May 22, 2018
jstriebel wrote: Something has to give. And I think that something will ultimately be a realization that they HAVE to accept a relegation setup with the USL. And when that comes to be, we'll already have our team.
Relegation will never happen in American sports, and i believe the European ones will shift away from it eventually as well. No one pays a quarter billion dollars (let alone the multiple billions they go for in Europe sometimes) for a team and accepts the possibility of being relegated to a 2nd tier because of a few bad seasons. Likewise these promoted teams get to bounce into the big money club for free just because they went on a hot streak. Also lets consider what would happen if Timbers 2 got the promotion into the MLS. Now you have two teams with shared branding and even worse a shared small market competing in the same league. Its not EVER going to happen. You might as well advocate a community corporation ownership structure in the vein of the Green Bay Packers. These are non starters and dead ideas and no amount of internet wishing is going to change it.

I think its far more productive to think of other ways to generate interest in late season games among the lower ranked teams. First and foremost the most effective strategy is keeping the teams competitive through draft allotments and salary caps.

One thought is to simply let every team into the playoff. Then low rank teams would be fighting to move up to play the lower high rank teams giving themselves greater opportunity to advance.

If you must have a down select post regular season, then maybe allow the teams who don't make it to the playoffs a slightly higher cap the following year.

Maybe consider awarding the next years USLPro championship game to the highest ranked team who doesn't make the playoffs.

None of these are as financially terrifying as relegation but that's sort of the point. Sports owners aren't in it to lose after all. Most of them spend to near their cap limit so what is the point in holding the Sword of Damocles over their head.

If an owner is truly not investing in their team and is a financial drag on the league then it seems reasonable that there be an ownership clause that allows the league to force a sale of a franchise with sufficient votes from the other franchisees. To me that is sufficient motivation especially if an annual gross ticket sales threshold made a vote obligatory. That would be hugely embarrassing public dressing down for any ownership group.
I don't disagree with you - I don't think MLS would ever commit to relegation. What I think could happen... is that people love the drama/tragedy/triumph of European relegation so much, and the USL is really trying to bring that to people. You might see the grass roots effort going on in USL begin to pick off some of the MLS popularity (this is a BIG if). But, it might end up being a pretty exciting league 2 in the US. But who knows... :P
474
Full MemberFull Member
474

PostMay 24, 2018#123

pattimagee wrote: ↑
May 24, 2018
I don't disagree with you - I don't think MLS would ever commit to relegation. What I think could happen... is that people love the drama/tragedy/triumph of European relegation so much, and the USL is really trying to bring that to people. You might see the grass roots effort going on in USL begin to pick off some of the MLS popularity (this is a BIG if). But, it might end up being a pretty exciting league 2 in the US. But who knows... :P
Also of note, the USL already has plans to create a third division league. If they could unify and organize with the NPSL (which has an astounding 96 teams, including St. Louis Club Atletico) to create a fourth and fifth division, you could see Promotion/Relegation working within those 4 tiers. (Side note: How cool would a relegation playoff game between two Saint Louis teams be if both teams had their own passionate fan base?)

A comment was made above about one organization having two teams in the top division. That shouldn't be allowed to happen. Pro/Rel systems generally limit second teams for an organization to the third tier or lower. It encourages organizations with a surplus of talent to sell or loan players out to other teams.

Since this is getting off topic, if somebody wants to start a thread just about soccer, I'm down with that.
7,801
Life MemberLife Member
7,801

PostMay 24, 2018#124

8 NBA Teams That Could Relocate And 8 Possible Destinations
https://www.thesportster.com/basketball ... tinations/

St. Louis is not one of the 8 possible landing spots.
5,704
Life MemberLife Member
5,704

PostMay 24, 2018#125

dweebe wrote: ↑
May 24, 2018
 8 NBA Teams That Could Relocate And 8 Possible Destinations
https://www.thesportster.com/basketball ... tinations/

St. Louis is not one of the 8 possible landing spots.
Thanks for the article. Some of the pairings seem to be a stretch to me. Would NBA really give up Brooklyn (NY) or give Knicks greater New York to themselves, Orlando (and Tampa an hour away to a lesser extent), and Atlanta for some of the cities suggested for relocation just based on shear size of market, metro areas, and media that would be given up on. Where as I get the idea that owners in Milwaukee or Sacramento might see gold at the end of the rainbow to get into bigger media markets. No doubt Seattle will get a team again and believe Las Vegas will as well.

The other point not related to St Louis that stuck out. More and more in pro sports you see either London or Mexico City be named as an expansion or relocation city as in this article. I think it is only a matter of time whether it be football, baseball, basketball, or hockey that pro sports give one or both of those cities a shot. Both have big markets, both have fan bases for American sports, both would be destination cities for American sport fans and both are just big huge media markets..

I did like the KC write up and mention of who didn't have a NBA team in Midwest including St. Louis and the nod to love for college basketball. Also, the tidbit and my impression from the article that KC support of its current pro sport teams, NFL and MLB, is actually a plus for consideration. Who wants to be a one horse town? I still believe that St Louis could easily be a three team pro sports town w NBA when you consider that two of the three pro teams would play in same arena & have completely different fan bases. St. Louis just doesn't have the deep pocket buyer who wants to make it happen is my take.
Read more posts (523 remaining)
Share