View Single Post
Old
02-13-2005, 03:41 PM
  #33
PatrickRoy33
Registered User
 
PatrickRoy33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Largo, Florida
Posts: 646
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to PatrickRoy33 Send a message via AIM to PatrickRoy33 Send a message via MSN to PatrickRoy33 Send a message via Yahoo to PatrickRoy33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
there's no reason Tampa should have a hockey team,
Then what's the reason they SHOULDN'T have a team? Make it a good one too, there's too many other teams that don't even begin to compare to the Bolt's....

Quote:
and if they did have a hockey team,
They do....

Quote:
it should be a terrible hockey team.
You're 3 years too late....

Quote:
I don't see contraction in the cards anytime soon. At a minimum though, one or two teams should move. Portland may be a decent home. I'm not sure if there's any other U.S. city that's a viable hockey option, unfortunately; perhaps Vegas or Seattle, but again, I personally haven't done the market studies.
There aren't any "viable" Canadian options either....

Quote:
As for Winnipeg...Love to see a team there again...don't know if it's viable, but under a new and more workable CBA, it may be viable.
There are many pigs across the planet that would LOVE to have wings....Vegas odds are a pick'em to which happens first....mind you the Jets couldn't survive in the hockey "mecca" of Winnipeg, yet the Lightning have finally stabilized, won a Cup, and if all goes well, continue to grow....

I can agree with Florida being contracted, as well as Carolina, Anaheim, Pittsburgh, Phoenix and Washington, but other than those, you'd need a real good reason to contract the Lightning, without contracting at least 2 Canadien franchises first.


Last edited by PatrickRoy33: 02-13-2005 at 03:57 PM.
PatrickRoy33 is offline