OKC Wranglers?

[Gothamite]

Maybe the NBA will finally give the Silnas some crazy-money offer they can't refuse and St. Louis will be back in play as an NBA relocation option....

You know, I always wondered why St. Louis was never talked about as an NBA city. Is there a lack of interest from the potential fanbase? Just talking to the people I know from that area, I think there would be.

Yeah, I always used to wonder why St. Louis, a pretty good sports city, never even got talked about when NBA relocation was discussed.

When the ABA and NBA merged, the NBA took all but two franchises. The owner of one - the Kentucky Colonels - accepted a buyout and then bought the Celtics. The other ownership group - the Silna family - took no money up front but negotiated for a percentage of what would have been their television revenue, in perpetuity.

Incredilbly smart deal - they've earned hundreds of millions of dollars, all for not fielding a team in St. Louis. But they apparently still own the territorial rights, so nobody else can move there without buying the Silnas out, but why would they sell?

[DDR]

Maybe the NBA will finally give the Silnas some crazy-money offer they can't refuse and St. Louis will be back in play as an NBA relocation option....

You know, I always wondered why St. Louis was never talked about as an NBA city. Is there a lack of interest from the potential fanbase? Just talking to the people I know from that area, I think there would be.

Yeah, I always used to wonder why St. Louis, a pretty good sports city, never even got talked about when NBA relocation was discussed.

When the ABA and NBA merged, the NBA took all but two franchises. The owner of one - the Kentucky Colonels - accepted a buyout and then bought the Celtics. The other ownership group - the Silna family - took no money up front but negotiated for a percentage of what would have been their television revenue, in perpetuity.

Incredilbly smart deal - they've earned hundreds of millions of dollars, all for not fielding a team in St. Louis. But they apparently still own the territorial rights, so nobody else can move there without buying the Silnas out, but why would they sell?

Wow. I didn't know that. What incredible foresight on the part of the Silna family. I guess any potential buyer would have to determine if there was still enough potential money to be made (X), and negotiate a deal that keeps the Silna family's percentage income (Y) intact.

If X - Y > 0, could we see a team in the STL?

[Gothamite]

Could be, but that still seems like an awfully long shot, which is why the Gateway City doesn't even get a passing mention in all this NBA relocation talk.

The likelihood gets slimmer every year, as television contracts continue to increase at the rate they are. The hurdle gets so much higher every season.

According to Wikipedia (take it FWIW): the NBA seems to have reconsidered after about five years, trying to buy them out in 1982. It almost worked, but the two sides dug in to their positions and negotiations broke down.

The sticking point? The NBA offered five million dollars over eight years, while the Silnas held out for eight million over five years. So they were forward-thinking, yes. But not that forward-thinking....

[realmo]

There is a difference between giving a nod to history and feeding stereotypes, and I think the quantity of these names just feed the stereotypes- which are mostly outdated. There are plenty of ranches out there, but one should think of the southwest as more diverse than that.

Oh sure, we gots ourselves plenty of diversity out here... we got cattle ranches, horse ranches, sheep ranches, and hog ranches!!! Every so often you'll see a rattlesnake, ostrich, or an emu ranch!

Course, down in LaGrange there's the Chicken Ranch.

3. Butte (MT) Pirates

Yes Virginia, there really is a Butte Rough Riders...

But all-in-all, Sonics fits OKC more than it does Seattle (sort of the way the Rockets fit Houston in many ways better than San Diego). First things first, you've got a ready-to-order corporate sponsor in town, as Sonic Drive-In is based in OKC. Then you have all the B-1 and B-2 jets out of adjacent Tinker AFB

Back in 1964, OKC was subject to OPERATION BONGO II... the ultimate result of which, ironically, was why Seattle never got to build the SST that was the source of the Sonics name in the first place.

Marc

You are absolutely wrong on this. A 41 year basketball tradition name such as Sonics in Seattle fits MUCH better than in OKC, you've got to be kidding me if you think the other way around. Boeing started in Seattle, and just because a fast food restaurant and some jets fly out of OKC does not make it a better fit. You are dead wrong, sorry. Plus *if* the Sonics move to OKC, Seattle's new NBA team in the next 3-5 years will have to be called the Sonics.

I also agree with Wranglers or any other stereotypical western-themed name being kinda stupid. Perhaps the Hornets, Grizzlies, or Bobcats would be a better name than the Wranglers.

What makes you so sure that without an arena, Seattle will get another team in that time frame? What also makes you so sure that the arena will be constructed? Sonics is an appropriate team name for OKC. And you aren't very clever in your name suggestions.

Because Seattle is too good of an NBA market to NOT have another NBA team in again and there are too many markets (New Orleans, Memphis, Charlotte for example...all of which have the same nicknames Im recommending as the new team for OKC, know what I mean?) that DO NOT or CANNOT support an NBA franchise...Seattle is not a mediocre market, media or otherwise, and the league needs Seattle very much. So the Sonics are either going to stay (which I believe is what is going to happen) or it's going to be expansion that places a team in OKC or Seattle. There are too many "rich" people in Seattle that dont want the NBA to leave...that's what makes me so sure that the NBA and the Sonics aren't going to leave. Another NBA team in a bad market? They should have learned from the Grizzlies move from Vancouver.

Seattle does have an arena, it's the KeyArena. I will say, the Sonics should eventually get a new arena, but right now, the Sonics have a horrible lease with the city and that's the first thing that should get resolved. This might be a bad example, but there is a reason why the Thunderbirds hockey team is moving to south of Seattle in 2009....

The city of Seattle has, reportedly, 1-2 days at this moment to get an arena deal or else the Sonics will file for relocation. The economic hit you are banking on the team taking will not deter this OKC-based ownership group. And once the Sonics move, how likely is it will Seattle build an arena? It would take a new arena in place for the NBA to return to Seattle.

The NBA is not interested in expansion at the moment because of the overall talent dilution, and David Stern may simply tell official Seattle, "Portland is your team". For varying reasons, the NBA will not have New Orleans, Memphis, and Charlotte move right now as well.

Now that a Seattle judge has ruled that this KeyArena lease case must go through a jury trial rather than arbitration, which would have been much quicker than a jury trial, now means a decision about the Sonics lease will probably will be made after the NBA March 31 deadline for relocation filing (this Oct 31 deadline is a self imposed deadline by Bennett and a laughable one at that considering they never intended to stay in Seattle anyway). I'll bet that it's looking like the Sonics will probably be in Seattle for at least the 2008-2009 season as well.

There are local groups who are ready to purchase the Sonics, Bennett just needs to sell and purchase the Hornets.

The NBA wants to get into China really bad, don't you think a team in Seattle would help with that effort?

[realmo]

double post, sorry about that friends.

[Krona]

Worst. Double Post. Ever.

EDIT: Nevermind

[rams80]

Now that a Seattle judge has ruled that this KeyArena lease case must go through a jury trial rather than arbitration, which would have been much quicker than a jury trial, now means a decision about the Sonics lease will probably will be made after the NBA March 31 deadline for relocation filing (this Oct 31 deadline is a self imposed deadline by Bennett and a laughable one at that considering they never intended to stay in Seattle anyway). I'll bet that it's looking like the Sonics will probably be in Seattle for at least the 2008-2009 season as well.

I'll ask again...is it worth delaying the inevitable? Even if you win by some miraculous outcome (and you won't, an appellate court would rule against you), you would inherit nothing more than a shell of a franchise that is in bad financial shape? Lame duck seasons are not pleasant experiences for anyone. Actually, I'm wondering if Bennett will appeal the decision for a jury trial, if he thinks he can get arbitration faster.

There are local groups who are ready to purchase the Sonics, Bennett just needs to sell and purchase the Hornets.

1) Who says the Shinns are selling in the near future? Bennett has a team now; who knows when one will go for sale? Who knows if he'd be able to even break even on the sale of the Sonics? Most importantly; where were these local groups when the Sonics first went for sale?

2) It is politically unpalatable, for multiple reasons, for the Hornets to move from New Orleans within the next decade.

The NBA wants to get into China really bad, don't you think a team in Seattle would help with that effort?

1) While I understand that Seattle has a significant Chinese population, I think the NBA's efforts to "get into China" would center more around getting more Yaos into the NBA and marketing the league that way. A quick scan of Seattle's roster shows that they currently have zero players of East Asian descent.

2) Portland will probably help just as much.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

This is what Seattle did when the Chargers and the M's wanted to move. They sued the teams, tied them up in litigation, and forced the owners to sell. It's PNW passive aggression at its finest.

[Arts11]

This is what Seattle did when the Chargers and the M's wanted to move. They sued the teams, tied them up in litigation, and forced the owners to sell. It's PNW passive aggression at its finest.

wait, what? the Chargers? or do you mean the Seahawks?

[Gothamite]

This is what Seattle did when the Chargers and the M's wanted to move. They sued the teams, tied them up in litigation, and forced the owners to sell. It's PNW passive aggression at its finest.

It's an old tactic. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't (Milwaukee Braves in 1964).

The NBA wants to get into China really bad, don't you think a team in Seattle would help with that effort?

1) While I understand that Seattle has a significant Chinese population, I think the NBA's efforts to "get into China" would center more around getting more Yaos into the NBA and marketing the league that way. A quick scan of Seattle's roster shows that they currently have zero players of East Asian descent.

2) Portland will probably help just as much.

I agree. I don't see how having the Sonics in Seattle really helps the NBA's goal to market more in China.

[DDR]

This is what Seattle did when the Chargers and the M's wanted to move. They sued the teams, tied them up in litigation, and forced the owners to sell. It's PNW passive aggression at its finest.

wait, what? the Chargers? or do you mean the Seahawks?

No, Seattle just really felt strongly that the Chargers remain in San Diego.

[knightranger]

Am I the only one who is getting really sick of the stereotypical naming of mid western and south western teams?

Does EVERY team from that area have to adpot a nickname referring to Cowboys or some sort of "Old Western" theme? I mean c'mon, why can't they be the Oklahoma City Sonics? or Thunder or whatever. Why relegate them to simply "Western" names? It gets so old after a while hearing the same overdone names over and over and over again. Can't we get more original? How many teams in the history of sport have been named the "Wranglers"? Have we run out of relevant and somewhat interesting names?

Geez...hate to rant, but c'mon lets give people in that area some credit. Its not like EVERY person in OKC has a barn with cows and expansive fields where they mount horses all day "wranglin" all of their animals till the wife hits the dinner bell and the 'boys' come back home after a long day. Its like people around the country think that area is a never ending Western or a Marlboro ad. I understand the history is there, but its not like EVERY team from the Boston area (for example) is named after something related to the Revolutionary war .

okay...maybe two of them are, but not ALL!

I couldn?t be further on the opposite side of you argument. I think teams need to reflect the history and heritage of their area. OKC is the home of the National Cowboy Hall of Fame. Prior to the west being settled, there probably was a lot of ?Wrangling? going on, on the frontier. There are far more teams that would sound completely out of place, if not stupid without the name change. What I hate more is when teams move and keep the names that have nothing to do with the history of where they are currently. It would tend to make me feel that they have not sold out to the area. The Lakers, we all know how many lakes are in LA (Minnesota). Then there is the reference to the massive Indian tribes in the Atlanta area (Boston). Then there are all of the hornets flying around New Orleans. That name was very specific to the Charlotte area. How many trolleys are there to dodge in LA? That name would have at least fit better in San Francisco. Western states or embedded in their history and are proud of it, not that everyone else isn?t, I would just prefer a team with a name that meant something to me not just some hand me down name. In what way would the Sonics name identify to Oklahoma City? About as much as the Lakers does to LA. I hope they do become the Wranglers if the move to OKC.

[Arts11]

Am I the only one who is getting really sick of the stereotypical naming of mid western and south western teams?

Does EVERY team from that area have to adpot a nickname referring to Cowboys or some sort of "Old Western" theme? I mean c'mon, why can't they be the Oklahoma City Sonics? or Thunder or whatever. Why relegate them to simply "Western" names? It gets so old after a while hearing the same overdone names over and over and over again. Can't we get more original? How many teams in the history of sport have been named the "Wranglers"? Have we run out of relevant and somewhat interesting names?

Geez...hate to rant, but c'mon lets give people in that area some credit. Its not like EVERY person in OKC has a barn with cows and expansive fields where they mount horses all day "wranglin" all of their animals till the wife hits the dinner bell and the 'boys' come back home after a long day. Its like people around the country think that area is a never ending Western or a Marlboro ad. I understand the history is there, but its not like EVERY team from the Boston area (for example) is named after something related to the Revolutionary war .

okay...maybe two of them are, but not ALL!

I couldn?t be further on the opposite side of you argument. I think teams need to reflect the history and heritage of their area. OKC is the home of the National Cowboy Hall of Fame. Prior to the west being settled, there probably was a lot of ?Wrangling? going on, on the frontier. There are far more teams that would sound completely out of place, if not stupid without the name change. What I hate more is when teams move and keep the names that have nothing to do with the history of where they are currently. It would tend to make me feel that they have not sold out to the area. The Lakers, we all know how many lakes are in LA (Minnesota). Then there is the reference to the massive Indian tribes in the Atlanta area (Boston). Then there are all of the hornets flying around New Orleans. That name was very specific to the Charlotte area. How many trolleys are there to dodge in LA? That name would have at least fit better in San Francisco. Western states or embedded in their history and are proud of it, not that everyone else isn?t, I would just prefer a team with a name that meant something to me not just some hand me down name. In what way would the Sonics name identify to Oklahoma City? About as much as the Lakers does to LA. I hope they do become the Wranglers if the move to OKC.

i agree. if a team's going to relocate, they should try to assimilate themselves to the new local culture, and that includes a relevant name-change. i think by the time a team moves, it's too late to want to honor it's past. i mean, if the owners wanted to keep some sense of history, they should've just stayed put in the original city. if you're going to make such a big change, you might as well go the whole 9 yards and do a renaming too. i believe the team name goes a long way in drawing a connection with the new fanbase. after all, how many people would really root for the new york red sox (shudders)?

that being said, if/when the Sonics move, i hope Oklahoma City comes up with a name that's both relevant and that'll flow with both "Oklahoma City" (assuming they'll be that specific) and "OKC" [although i will admit, (Oklahoma) "City SuperSonics" does have some alliterative flow going for it].

[jhans203]

Then there is the reference to the massive Indian tribes in the Atlanta area (Boston).

Read your history books and you will find Georgia has a rich Native American history.

[realmo]

Now that a Seattle judge has ruled that this KeyArena lease case must go through a jury trial rather than arbitration, which would have been much quicker than a jury trial, now means a decision about the Sonics lease will probably will be made after the NBA March 31 deadline for relocation filing (this Oct 31 deadline is a self imposed deadline by Bennett and a laughable one at that considering they never intended to stay in Seattle anyway). I'll bet that it's looking like the Sonics will probably be in Seattle for at least the 2008-2009 season as well.

I'll ask again...is it worth delaying the inevitable? Even if you win by some miraculous outcome (and you won't, an appellate court would rule against you), you would inherit nothing more than a shell of a franchise that is in bad financial shape? Lame duck seasons are not pleasant experiences for anyone. Actually, I'm wondering if Bennett will appeal the decision for a jury trial, if he thinks he can get arbitration faster.

A move is not inevitable and he can't get arbitration. Delaying a potential move only helps the Sonics staying in Seattle. Bennett might decide that his $350 million dollar investment is losing too much money and sell the Sonics because he can't leave for OKC within his desired time frame. He's creating the lame ducks by not marketing Durant or Green or any of the other Sonics. It's been a faceless marketing campaign, no Durant on the billboards, nothing. Bennett is trying to detach this group of players from the fans (for obvious reasons), and I think that this is going to end up backfiring on him, just like everything else so far.

There are local groups who are ready to purchase the Sonics, Bennett just needs to sell and purchase the Hornets.

1) Who says the Shinns are selling in the near future? Bennett has a team now; who knows when one will go for sale? Who knows if he'd be able to even break even on the sale of the Sonics? Most importantly; where were these local groups when the Sonics first went for sale?

The new potential ownership group were not given the opportunity at the time to purchase the Sonics from Schultz, Schultz turned the sale around quickly with David Stern and Bennett. It caught a lot of the minority owners by suprise and were basically forced to sell which enabled those minority partners to purchase the team.

2) It is politically unpalatable, for multiple reasons, for the Hornets to move from New Orleans within the next decade.

It's great that on top of a broken economic model, the NBA continues to maintain franchises in less desirable markets. If the Sonics move from Seattle after 40 plus years of very strong support from the fan base, then anything is possible.

The NBA wants to get into China really bad, don't you think a team in Seattle would help with that effort?

1) While I understand that Seattle has a significant Chinese population, I think the NBA's efforts to "get into China" would center more around getting more Yaos into the NBA and marketing the league that way. A quick scan of Seattle's roster shows that they currently have zero players of East Asian descent.

That's because there's only a couple of players in the whole league with East Asian descent. The Sonics could be for East Asians as the Mariners are for the Japanese one day because of it's geography and it's ties economically.

2) Portland will probably help just as much.

Portland also needs Seattle for the rivalry and there's no way that Sonics fans are going to automatically going to become Blazers fans. It works for the Seahawks and the Mariners, but not for the Sonics. If Portland ever gets a MLB team, Im sure that they would be able to support it well, but they wouldnt be able to support an NFL team I dont think.

[rams80]

A move is not inevitable and he can't get arbitration. Delaying a potential move only helps the Sonics staying in Seattle. Bennett might decide that his $350 million dollar investment is losing too much money and sell the Sonics because he can't leave for OKC within his desired time frame. He's creating the lame ducks by not marketing Durant or Green or any of the other Sonics. It's been a faceless marketing campaign, no Durant on the billboards, nothing. Bennett is trying to detach this group of players from the fans (for obvious reasons), and I think that this is going to end up backfiring on him, just like everything else so far.

How is it not inevitable? An appellate court would rule in his favor. And his creation of the lame duck team has reduced the team's worth. He will not sell the franchise for pennies on the dollar, but I think he'd be willing to eat a loss for a year or two if it ultimately meant he'd win. And he'd ultimately win when the case got to the higher courts.

The new potential ownership group were not given the opportunity at the time to purchase the Sonics from Schultz, Schultz turned the sale around quickly with David Stern and Bennett. It caught a lot of the minority owners by suprise and were basically forced to sell which enabled those minority partners to purchase the team.

OK...but the Hornets are still not for sale. He has a franchise now, but doesn't know when he'll get a shot at another. He's going to ride it out.

It's great that on top of a broken economic model, the NBA continues to maintain franchises in less desirable markets. If the Sonics move from Seattle after 40 plus years of very strong support from the fan base, then anything is possible.

(Un)fortunately, Seattle has not been destroyed by an earthquake or tsunami. If such an act of God did hit Seattle, then the NBA would face a similar backlash for moving the team. It doesn't make sense, but that's how this country rolls today.

That's because there's only a couple of players in the whole league with East Asian descent. The Sonics could be for East Asians as the Mariners are for the Japanese one day because of it's geography and it's ties economically.

As could Portland, the Lakers, or the Rockets. You're speaking in hypotheticals. Seattle is not going to make or break the NBA's success in China.

Portland also needs Seattle for the rivalry and there's no way that Sonics fans are going to automatically going to become Blazers fans. It works for the Seahawks and the Mariners, but not for the Sonics. If Portland ever gets a MLB team, Im sure that they would be able to support it well, but they wouldnt be able to support an NFL team I dont think.

No way? The NBA's not expanding in this country for the next decade at least IMO. The Sonics fans are going to want to root for a team, so why not the only team in the Pacific Northwest.

Also...the NBA's schedule format downgrades geographic rivalries. Couple that with Portland's "only team in town" status, and I don't think they need Seattle.

[powersurge]

Am I the only one who is getting really sick of the stereotypical naming of mid western and south western teams?

Does EVERY team from that area have to adpot a nickname referring to Cowboys or some sort of "Old Western" theme? I mean c'mon, why can't they be the Oklahoma City Sonics? or Thunder or whatever. Why relegate them to simply "Western" names? It gets so old after a while hearing the same overdone names over and over and over again. Can't we get more original? How many teams in the history of sport have been named the "Wranglers"? Have we run out of relevant and somewhat interesting names?

Geez...hate to rant, but c'mon lets give people in that area some credit. Its not like EVERY person in OKC has a barn with cows and expansive fields where they mount horses all day "wranglin" all of their animals till the wife hits the dinner bell and the 'boys' come back home after a long day. Its like people around the country think that area is a never ending Western or a Marlboro ad. I understand the history is there, but its not like EVERY team from the Boston area (for example) is named after something related to the Revolutionary war .

okay...maybe two of them are, but not ALL!

I couldn?t be further on the opposite side of you argument. I think teams need to reflect the history and heritage of their area. OKC is the home of the National Cowboy Hall of Fame. Prior to the west being settled, there probably was a lot of ?Wrangling? going on, on the frontier. There are far more teams that would sound completely out of place, if not stupid without the name change. What I hate more is when teams move and keep the names that have nothing to do with the history of where they are currently. It would tend to make me feel that they have not sold out to the area. The Lakers, we all know how many lakes are in LA (Minnesota). Then there is the reference to the massive Indian tribes in the Atlanta area (Boston). Then there are all of the hornets flying around New Orleans. That name was very specific to the Charlotte area. How many trolleys are there to dodge in LA? That name would have at least fit better in San Francisco. Western states or embedded in their history and are proud of it, not that everyone else isn?t, I would just prefer a team with a name that meant something to me not just some hand me down name. In what way would the Sonics name identify to Oklahoma City? About as much as the Lakers does to LA. I hope they do become the Wranglers if the move to OKC.

You make some good points, but I still believe that there are plenty of OTHER nicknames that can be successfully marketed in that area that don't necessarily have to be the "stereotypical" mid western team name. There's two ways a team could go in their decision to name a team 1. give a nod to the local history and choose a nickname that recalls the frontier and cowboy history ... or 2. Come up with a nickname more relevant to the current times and better representing the future of the area and what Oklahoma City IS and WILL BE as opposed to what it once WAS. Who knows whats really the best road to go down, but I'd rather go down the road less traveled in this case and go for number 2.

ha ha...number 2!

will I ever grow up?

[illwauk]

For the record, LA does have a lake (Lake Elsinore, IIRC) contrary to popular belief. But I do agree that Lakers has much more significance with Minnesota (or Milwaukee and Chicago for that matter).

Also, while I think you have a point, is it really that much different than how teams near the Great Lakes tend to have industrial names (Packers, Brewers, Pistons, Steelers, etc.) or Northeastern teams having revolutionary names (Patriots, Yankees, 76ers, etc.)? If midwestern/southwestern teams are being sterotyped, it's probably out of a lack of other things in that area that translate decently into sports names. I know Oklahoma is big on health care, but I can't think of how to derive a team nickname from that, can you? And if you can, please let me know because health care is much, MUCH bigger than brewing in Milwaukee these days.

[pokecat12]

Maybe the NBA will finally give the Silnas some crazy-money offer they can't refuse and St. Louis will be back in play as an NBA relocation option....

You know, I always wondered why St. Louis was never talked about as an NBA city. Is there a lack of interest from the potential fanbase? Just talking to the people I know from that area, I think there would be.

Yeah, I always used to wonder why St. Louis, a pretty good sports city, never even got talked about when NBA relocation was discussed.

When the ABA and NBA merged, the NBA took all but two franchises. The owner of one - the Kentucky Colonels - accepted a buyout and then bought the Celtics. The other ownership group - the Silna family - took no money up front but negotiated for a percentage of what would have been their television revenue, in perpetuity.

Incredilbly smart deal - they've earned hundreds of millions of dollars, all for not fielding a team in St. Louis. But they apparently still own the territorial rights, so nobody else can move there without buying the Silnas out, but why would they sell?

John Y Brown didn't buy the Celtics, he bought the Buffalo Braves who became the San Diego/L.A. Clippers. He had said that he would make more money folding than trying to make the jump. We had a very loyal fan base here and I am sure they would have been around for some years even if the economy here was not that great. The other ABA team were the Spirits of St. Louis whom the Silna family owned. John Y was not liked for a few years but that all changed when he became Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky in 1980. the interesting thing is that if we get a new NBA franchise, they will be known as the Colonels. Kentucky will not give up on the dream of the return of the Colonels.

[Gothamite]

I gladly stand corrected on the Celtics/Braves thing.

I remember the name "Colonels" was floated for Kentucky when the Grizzlies were looking to move. Personally, I'd love to see it - I like establishing and respecting traditional names in a market (Milwaukee Brewers, San Diego Padres etc).