12/21/24
April 14, 2006
No Stuporsonics in Seattle?: Has moving sports teams become the thing to do? And Loria isn't even involved in this. As for Stern...
posted by roberts to basketball at 02:44 PM - 26 comments
As far as I'm concerned, I just hope that they keep them somewhere in the West. Being a LAKER fan I like the idea of playing the Sonics four times a year.
posted by im050483 at 02:53 PM on April 14, 2006
vancouver could use an nba team
posted by tommybiden at 03:43 PM on April 14, 2006
No Buffalo needs an nba team more.
posted by buffalo will never win at 03:49 PM on April 14, 2006
how about mexico city? go burros!
posted by ninjavshippo at 04:03 PM on April 14, 2006
Lakers? I didnt know this was a WNBA forum
posted by deafoh at 04:18 PM on April 14, 2006
Personally, being from the area, I think it would be a pity for them to move. The city council is being stubborn and short-sighted in their treatment of the team. Look at the deals that the Mariners and Seahawks got. The sonics are being treated like the forgotten younger brother under the stairs. Key Arena should be replaced and any self respecting city official should at least try to meet the team half-way. Fortunately, there are enough private sector backers in the Puget sound area that appear interested in keeping the team in the NW. Come to Spokane; we have a new arena. (yeah, right, come to Spokane--hah)
posted by THX-1138 at 04:19 PM on April 14, 2006
mark my words--the trailblazers will be sold and moved to Las Vegas, and the Sonics will move to PDX.
posted by markovitch at 04:46 PM on April 14, 2006
isn't the building only 12 years old or so quit whining pruduce a quality team and the fans will come i am a sonic fan through and through they are not very good right now i heard no complaining when they were a pacific division lock every year bad buiseness decisions have destroyed this team and this is just another prime example.
posted by BigSpizznizzle at 05:01 PM on April 14, 2006
The Kings are going to Las Vegas as part of the Malouf Bros new sports complex and gambling den. The Stupersonics are moving to San Jose since the SF Bay Area does not have a pro NBA team.
posted by irunfromclones at 05:18 PM on April 14, 2006
That adds the Sonics. Moving is popular now, at least in the NBA. The NBA is moving out of cities like Portland, Seattle, NO, and Sacramento and heading to LV, KC, and OKC. The list of teams is going to grow, but the guaranteed cities are the three above mentioned. That means other cities will get a team. Former cities, Mexico, and Canada, in my view, will not get a team. About the Bay Area, they do have a team, the Warriors. SJ will not get an NBA team because their hands will be full soon, with the A's (MLB). As a Lakers fan and an L.A. native, this is all quite interesting to watch, like expansion.
posted by Joe88 at 06:02 PM on April 14, 2006
I agree with markovitch. The Sonics will end up here in Portland, right after we kiss those lame asses goodbye. The sooner the better.
posted by lex2000 at 06:49 PM on April 14, 2006
They already tried it in Vancouver, tommytrump. Where do you think Memphis was before they moved to Tennessee?
posted by lex2000 at 06:51 PM on April 14, 2006
Yo, irunfromclones, what about Golden State? They're in the Bay, and they aren't even the worst team in the league anymore!
posted by lex2000 at 06:54 PM on April 14, 2006
do ya HAVE a sense of humour??? i think memphis has ALWAYS been in egypt...and tennessee....but i wouldn't call what the grizzlies played in vancouver basketball.
posted by tommybiden at 07:15 PM on April 14, 2006
Well THX, as someone who also lives in Seattle, and was pissed as hell when rich bastards corrupted democracy to get their billion-dollar taxpayer playpens for football and baseball (for that money, we could have just bought the damned teams and told them to shut and be happy with their stadiums...), I certainly don't want to see this pattern repeated yet again, for no good reason. What kind of crazy is it to think the best use for our taxpayer dollars is to give to a multi-billion dollar company for a stadium they don't need?! This from the same state that so frequently tries to cut its taxes and thinks that government is horribly wasteful... somehow believes $200 million is just lying around under the city's couch cushions? Fucking moron voters... KeyArena should not be replaced, or even have hundreds of millions spent on "renovating" it- it's barely a decade old for god's sake, and this racketeering that Stern and his bastard owners do when they threaten to leave a city should be stood up to once and for all. The NBA is a business, and they know it, but they play this heartstring-tugging game when they try to paint the city officials as "bad people" who want to "kill the Mariners/Hawks/Sonics" blah blah blah fuck you to death you corrupt piece of shit midget!!! The NBA is a multi-billion dollar company, and has more than enough to build a new stadium for every franchise every 20-30 years- each- out of their coffers. But why spend that money when you can convince troglodyte fans that those durn lib'ruls in Seattle are bad bad eggheads trying to kill pro sports! And they signed a contract and lease- deal with it, assholes. If this were a player trying to weasel out of his deal you'd shit smear him across every media outlet in the country. And if the city were trying to kick you out, you know Stern and a gaggle of soulless lawyers would descend on Seattle. So... suck it up, fucktards. The Sonics make plenty of money, and if they don't- well boohoo, that's not MY problem. You're a private business, if you can't be profitable here then maybe you should leave. And if you can't be profitable without playing this game of musical cities with your teams to extort new stadiums on the public dime, then you shouldn't even have a fucking league.
Eastside power brokers have begun casual talks about building a Bellevue arena -- possibly privately financed -- if the team decides to leave the Emerald City. The Sonics draw a reported 65 percent of their fans from across Lake Washington.As well they should- I have no problem with private money and relocating the stadium, and maybe building an east side stadium is the right choice considering the fan base. But this emotional crap they try to pull, making the dim-bulb voters (some of whom have apparently posted here) buy into a false dichotomy: either we the people pony up $200+ million in renovations or we "lose" the Sonics. Well that shit pisses me off, and I'd love to see if some hot-shot lawyers could find grounds for racketeering or extortion or the like in some of these pro sports actions: I'd love to see a state government go after these punks with the same vigor they put into the tobacco lawsuits. The Seattle City Council are doing a great thing by not playing ball, and Nick Licata- our best councilmember- is even trying to put together a package to prove that Seattle Center and Key Arena can be profitable or even more profitable if we just let the Sonics leave and don't give in to their extortion.
posted by hincandenza at 09:00 PM on April 14, 2006
i hate the sonics and ray allan should have gone to the cavs in the off season so i real dont cae about what hapens 2 there sorry butts
posted by OSU4LIFE at 09:40 PM on April 14, 2006
Hal, I do agree with you. I actually couldn't give 2 fucks if the Sonics leave. Being an eastsider, I know that Seattle couldn't give 2 fucks about my opinion. I also don't care if Ray Allen and the rest of the team demand trades to Portland so they can be with Nate again. Being a troglodyte fan, as you know, and from Spokane to boot, I don't have enough brains to know what's right. I mean the taxpayer dollars will be better spent on the west side for other things. Perhaps more freeway ramps or something. I did initially think that it would be bad if Seattle lost it's pro sport franchises, but in all honesty, I could give a shit. I have better things to waste my time on, like hoping our new mayor isn't looking for teenage boys on the internet. Maybe we could get Seattle's city council to run our one horse back-water. Upon reflection, I did realize that what I said earlier was stupid, but I didn't think anyone was paying attention. I still like the football and baseball franchises though. I hope they stay in Seattle. Real purty stadyums. Back to growing my mullett and driving my camaro to my meth lab.
posted by THX-1138 at 10:11 PM on April 14, 2006
I think we should let Sonics fans speak more, it's their team. However, I'm going to say this again: the Bay Area has a team and there will be no second. Portland and Vancouver were bad ideas, they will not get a second chance. KC is the only city to have had a team and will have one again. However, I think the NEXT city to have a team will be LV, first man there gets it, Sin City Sweepstakes. It's 300 miles from here, L.A. Good rivalry wi the Lake Show.
posted by Joe88 at 11:42 PM on April 14, 2006
So yerfatma, was that perdiction good enough for your profile? I have never thought that sports teams should be obligated to stay in there city. It is essentially a privately owned buisness, which should have the rights to operate where it pleases. Obviously I would be very pissed if any team from Detroit left but I don't think teams should have an obligation to stay.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:34 AM on April 15, 2006
From the "Letters We'd Like To See" file: To: David Stern and NBA franchise owners Re: KeyArena Upgrades Dear Mr. Stern et al, Go fuck yourself. Sincerely, The Seattle taxpayers and City Council
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:46 AM on April 15, 2006
Can you Say? Oklahoma (City) Hornets Las Vegas Kings Kansas City Trailblazers Anaheim Supersonics
posted by Joe88 at 03:27 PM on April 15, 2006
A teams failure or success in a given market has more to do with the quality of the team and ownership group than anything else. Any city will be able to produce 15,000-20,000 for a winning team. Look at San Antonio. Good owners, good team, good support. Portland had this success for many years. The Sonics did when they were winning too. There is also a honeymoon period with new teams, where they will get support even if they aren't playing well. Oklahoma City will draw poorly after a few years if the Hornets stay there and don't play well. Guaranteed. Same will go with Las Vegas, Kansas City, etc. There is a long history of poor ownership, and thusly poor quality teams, causing a franchise to move. Howard Schultz and Paul Allen are not good owners for their teams at this time. Montreal in baseball is the best example of that, the city totally could have supported the Expos if the ownership wanted that. Baseball is a little different too, in that they play a lot more games in much bigger stadiums. Even good teams can't sell out every game. The gist is that a good owner who provides a good product and isn't disingenuous will succeed almost anywhere. The Jeffrey Lorias and George Shinns of the world can't do well anywhere over time, but the George Steinbrenners and Peter Holts of the world will succeed anywhere. The only cities that may be immune to this are New York, Chicago and Detroit. Not Los Angeles though. The teams there suffer for attendence if they don't play well. The whole issue of public stadium financing is a red herring. It fleeces the locals and doesn't give much in return. A city never gets back enough from it's investment in a sports venue to make it worthwhile. There is a lot of spin involved to make it seem like the tourism and service economy benefit from it enough to make it a good deal, but that same money could be spent countless other ways with better results. Spending public money to attract a sports team is a stopgap measure for bad owners to gain leverage and make quick money, but it is a fleeting joy. How can you trust an owner that moves to your city just because you make a deal? That is like marrying someone who left their spouse just to marry you. Aren't they likely to do it again? Do you think Steinbrenner needs to worry about public money? He is probably making more money if he builds the stadium himself, like Peter Magowan with the Giants.
posted by kittydog42 at 04:03 PM on April 15, 2006
I have a great sense of humor. What you said simply wasn't humorous.
posted by lex2000 at 03:21 PM on April 17, 2006
the Bay Area has a team When did that happen?
posted by irunfromclones at 05:13 PM on April 17, 2006
joe88, kittydog42, yall must not know the truth about the hornets/new orleans deal the arena/Hornets lease contractually OBLIGATES the Hornets to play there until at least 2012. The only reasn the Hornets are playing another year in OKC is to allow the new orleans fan base to replenish itself and the city to rebuild further the Hornets are COMING BACK TO NEW ORLEANS in 2007. by then, if a portland or seattle deal isn't settled by then, oklahoma city could be in line to make one of those its permanent team. i hope oklahoma gets its own team so we can have a friendly rivalry between N.O. and OKC
posted by chalmetteowl at 06:18 PM on April 17, 2006
The NBA is threatening to leave Seattle because the lease deal that they have until 2010 isn't good enough for them. They shouldn't have signed it then. Now, instead of waiting until it expires to get a more favorable deal, they want to threaten Seattle with departure to get a new deal.