OKC Wranglers?

[jhans203]

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.

John Y. Brown bought half of the Braves after the merger and then rest in the 76-77 season, he then brokered a deal with the Celtics owner to swap franchises, because their owner wanted to have a franchise in his native California. The deal let the Celts owner move the Braves to San Diego to become the Clippers and the Celts to stay in Boston. I am not very sure how long he owned the Celtics though.

[mfoster]

For the record, LA does have a lake (Lake Elsinore, IIRC) contrary to popular belief.

That's where the brewery is, eh?

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.

I'm not sure where you get Oklahoma being big on health care... it's dead last (or near it) in most rankings and surveys, like this one... When I lived in OKC I worked in the State Health Department building. We once had a hepatitis outbreak sourced from the little mini-mart/care on the first floor. Not to knock my alma mater (OU), but I can name five medical schools in Texas who do more research than both of the medical schools in Oklahoma (OU and OSU) COMBINED.

[Gothamite]

But bonus points for that screenshot.

[realmo]

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.

--Bennett would NOT ultimately win in higher courts, that's part of the reason why the ruling on monday was huge. Oh, and a local ownership group just stepped up to the plate publicly. www.seattletimes.com. They're not the only group here in Seattle that wants to purchase the team. Plus, former Sen. Slade Gorton who sued MLB when the Pilots left (that's how Seattle got the Mariners) and who also coordinated the sale from Jeff Smulyan to local ownership (Nintendo of America and various other partners) is the lawyer the city of Seattle hired for when this lease case goes into litigation.

--The news of local ownership groups changes things a little bit. David Stern doesn't want to lose the Seattle market, nobody does and this is fantastic for Sonics fans. I understand that Bennett has said that he doesn't want to sell, but local ownership for a historic franchise in the NBA and in this city is good for the NBA. I think the pressure is on Bennett and Stern now.

--Now that the season has started and a sell out crowd chanted "Save Our Sonics" several times throughout the game last night, the momentum is turning for Sonics fans. That's why it's not inevitable. the feeling here in Seattle is that we're taking off our gloves and we're going to fight Clay Bennett. How can the NBA ignore all of this? They can't, it would be another black eye to the league to allow this to happen. The move is NOT inevitable.

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.

--I'm not so sure about that...$30 million relocation fee, lawsuits, pressure to sell to local ownership, legal fees, on top of operating the team at a loss every year makes it awfully hard to ride something out. He's a smart business man and he should probably sell to prevent further losses. I'm sure David Stern will help him get another franchise, much like how he helped Bennett purchase this one. Bennett is not going to sit around for 3 years losing money, he should be forced to sell.

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.

--And the owner of the Hornets is still demanding a $20 million practice facility from the government in spite of the disaster.

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.

--It certainly helps that Seattle is in the league, it's better for the NBA to have a team in Seattle for their marketing efforts in China. Yi Jianlian said that Milwaukee was "a mystery to him" and that there were reports that he wanted to go to a market with a large Chinese population. Seattle is one of those cities, OKC is not.

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.

--Now that's speaking in hypotheticals. Yes, Portland needs Seattle. Sonics and Blazers are rivals and that's great for the league and for the cities. The "only team in town" status is wrong, not after as many years as the Blazers and Sonics have been rivals. I live in Seattle, nobody is going to root for the Blazers except for a few extremely die hard NBA fans, maybe. Sonic fans rooting for the Blazers? Are you kidding me? Sonics or no Sonics, it's not gunna happen.

Alright, you can have the last word on this...thanks for the slightly off topic debate

[rams80]

--Bennett would NOT ultimately win in higher courts, that's part of the reason why the ruling on monday was huge. Oh, and a local ownership group just stepped up to the plate publicly. www.seattletimes.com. They're not the only group here in Seattle that wants to purchase the team. Plus, former Sen. Slade Gorton who sued MLB when the Pilots left (that's how Seattle got the Mariners) and who also coordinated the sale from Jeff Smulyan to local ownership (Nintendo of America and various other partners) is the lawyer the city of Seattle hired for when this lease case goes into litigation.

Why would he not win? Legal precedent in this country would be on his side. If he did lose for some reason, all he would have to do would be to wait a year or two for the lease to run out.

--The news of local ownership groups changes things a little bit. David Stern doesn't want to lose the Seattle market, nobody does and this is fantastic for Sonics fans. I understand that Bennett has said that he doesn't want to sell, but local ownership for a historic franchise in the NBA and in this city is good for the NBA. I think the pressure is on Bennett and Stern now.

David Stern might like to keep the Seattle market, but he'd like a new arena in place a lot more. All this does, at most, is buy the City of Seattle a couple of years to get an arena deal in place. Once the lease is up, and if there is no arena being built, its "Adios" to the Sonics.

--Now that the season has started and a sell out crowd chanted "Save Our Sonics" several times throughout the game last night, the momentum is turning for Sonics fans. That's why it's not inevitable. the feeling here in Seattle is that we're taking off our gloves and we're going to fight Clay Bennett. How can the NBA ignore all of this? They can't, it would be another black eye to the league to allow this to happen. The move is NOT inevitable.

What you have just described is hardly unique in efforts to keep teams from moving. Momentum is not shifting, and you are reading way to much in to this. The only way to keep the move from being inevitable, is to get a new arena built. If I were a Sonics fan, I would be focusing on lobbying for that, now that the courts bought me time until 2010. Although what I've seen indicates Washington voters may be loathe to pony up for any more stadia in the near future.

--I'm not so sure about that...$30 million relocation fee, lawsuits, pressure to sell to local ownership, legal fees, on top of operating the team at a loss every year makes it awfully hard to ride something out. He's a smart business man and he should probably sell to prevent further losses. I'm sure David Stern will help him get another franchise, much like how he helped Bennett purchase this one. Bennett is not going to sit around for 3 years losing money, he should be forced to sell.

I'm not sure another movable NBA team will go on the market before 2010, while it's pretty apparent to me that if Bennett were to sell at this point, he would suffer far more losses than he would if he simply waited the lease out. He's not going to sell, and the bolded section...Bennett would be able to take legal action of his own in result of that.

--And the owner of the Hornets is still demanding a $20 million practice facility from the government in spite of the disaster.

So Shinn's a market-killing tool. But one who probably doesn't want to unload his team. The NBA can't force him to unload, and they won't let him work his magic on a third market. And the PR hit from "abandoning" New Orleans in its time of need is unpalatable for the NBA.

--It certainly helps that Seattle is in the league, it's better for the NBA to have a team in Seattle for their marketing efforts in China. Yi Jianlian said that Milwaukee was "a mystery to him" and that there were reports that he wanted to go to a market with a large Chinese population. Seattle is one of those cities, OKC is not.

But you drafted Kevin Durant (which was the correct call...). If Seattle was an integral part of the NBA's marketing strategy for China, don't you think Stern would have pressured Bennett to pick Yi Jianlian?

--Now that's speaking in hypotheticals. Yes, Portland needs Seattle. Sonics and Blazers are rivals and that's great for the league and for the cities. The "only team in town" status is wrong, not after as many years as the Blazers and Sonics have been rivals. I live in Seattle, nobody is going to root for the Blazers except for a few extremely die hard NBA fans, maybe. Sonic fans rooting for the Blazers? Are you kidding me? Sonics or no Sonics, it's not gunna happen.

Alright, you can have the last word on this...thanks for the slightly off topic debate

Portland's a big enough market in its own right, and it would have the entire Pacific Northwest to itself. If you are an NBA fan in Seattle, you may have little choice but to either follow the team in OKC, or root for Portland. When I said "only team in town", I meant only major league team in town; most American sports fans place a clear line between major and minor leagues. That helps the Blazers.

EDIT-For what it's worth...

Sonics apply to move to OKC.

I'll note he mentions that they intend to move, if they are able to win their litigation, get an early termination of the lease, OR when the lease expires.

At best for you, it looks like the 2009-2010 season will be the Seattle Supersonics' last season.

[Claystation360]

I say they need to pull the NFL browns deal , move the team to the OKC but the name supersonics the history, the colors and every thing that has ever been the sonics besides the current roster would stay in seattle for a future expansion team . and the current club or Bennett club and roster move to OKC and start a new with a new name colors and fan base . there should be some kinda rule when teams have been around this long .

[rams80]

I say they need to pull the NFL browns deal , move the team to the OKC but the name supersonics the history, the colors and every thing that has ever been the sonics besides the current roster would stay in seattle for a future expansion team . and the current club or Bennett club and roster move to OKC and start a new with a new name colors and fan base . there should be some kinda rule when teams have been around this long .

That sounds like a great idea....except expansion within the Continental US is not within the cards for the NBA for the foreseeable future.

Actually, my full position on "Cleveland Plans" has been stated elsewhere. Suffice it to say that I don't like them.

[lilgump]

Im feeling something like that Cleveland Plan, but the current roster is kept here as well... So Seattle keeps Kevin Durant.

And Clay Bennett doesnt get anything.

I guess what Im rooting for is that he sells them and the team stays in Seattle.

[powersurge]

Sorry Sonics fans, but it doesn't matter how loud you chant "Save our Sonics!" or how many sell outs you have...its over. Kind of reminds me of the half-assed effort that we Whaler fans gave in a feeble attempt to save the Whale from moving to Carolina. That didn't work then, its not going to work now.

Its a shame that Seattle is losing the team and a bigger shame that its moving to Oklahoma City. Nothing against OKC or the people that live there, but this is only a temporary fix IMO. I think the city will successfully host the team for a few years, but the same small market problems will linger and reappear in another 3-4 years. The arena will magically become inadequate to house the team and the tax payers are going to be raked across the coals before losing the team to another city. I see this move as neither here nor there for the team and the league. Again, its a temporary solution at best.

For a league that is making a concerted effort to take the NBA global, moving to Oklahoma is not congruent with that movement.

[realmo]

we'll see about all of this everyone...but I'm pretty positive on the Sonics staying here. I'll revisit this posting when it happens.

[leedsunited]

I say they need to pull the NFL browns deal , move the team to the OKC but the name supersonics the history, the colors and every thing that has ever been the sonics besides the current roster would stay in seattle for a future expansion team . and the current club or Bennett club and roster move to OKC and start a new with a new name colors and fan base . there should be some kinda rule when teams have been around this long .

That sounds like a great idea....except expansion within the Continental US is not within the cards for the NBA for the foreseeable future.

Nor should it be. The NBA should be cutting the cord on more than a couple of franchises as it stands.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, but no league likes to contract - sends the message that the whole enterprise is shaky.

[powersurge]

we'll see about all of this everyone...but I'm pretty positive on the Sonics staying here. I'll revisit this posting when it happens.

Hey, I hope you're right. I just don't think they'll stay in Seattle though. Its all contigent on a new facility and it looks like they're at a stalemate over that issue with no end in sight.

Good luck, Seattle....you're gonna need it.

[leedsunited]

Yeah, but no league likes to contract - sends the message that the whole enterprise is shaky.

Yeah. I know, it certainly doesn't help the AFL any with teams folding after every season. I'm just worried about the talent dilution.

[Arts11]

Yeah, but no league likes to contract - sends the message that the whole enterprise is shaky.

Yeah. I know, it certainly doesn't help the AFL any with teams folding after every season. I'm just worried about the talent dilution.

I was raised on early 90s basketball so I've always known a league with at least 28 teams, but I've also dabbled in NBA history, and the sheer amount of talent on those pre late-80s expansion teams is just ludicrous. Makes me wish for that 24 team league of the 80s.

[Ez Street]

Memphis is already shaky, OKC is smaller than Memphis......

I'm jus' saying.....

[OMMF]

Yeah, but no league likes to contract - sends the message that the whole enterprise is shaky.

To me, it seems that this thinking only applies in sports. The company I work for expands and contracts all the time. I think investors would rather see management make good decisions but sometimes you make a mistake. So you have to accept that and do what is best for the overall health of the company.

[rams80]

Yeah, but no league likes to contract - sends the message that the whole enterprise is shaky.

To me, it seems that this thinking only applies in sports. The company I work for expands and contracts all the time. I think investors would rather see management make good decisions but sometimes you make a mistake. So you have to accept that and do what is best for the overall health of the company.

Let's try this. Contracting teams would probably nuke a market more thoroughly than simply moving a team, hurting future expansion. Does that work?

[Claystation360]

Contracting teams , would make a bad inpact on the league from a marketing standpoint . I wouldn't do it , I mean the NFL hasn't done it since 52 & i don't see them doing it anytime soon there is always some where for a club to go , better to move them then end their history .

[powersurge]

I think the biggest problem with contraction is the fact that a league has to admit they were wrong in either approving the inception of that team or the relocation into that market. No one wants to admit they're wrong. If you look past the issue of 'pride' I don't think contraction is all that bad. Its not like they would be saying that you could never have a team in that particular market, they are simply saying that all things considered it didn't work for the time being....not necessarily for ever.

Markets change, ownership groups change...blah blah blah. Just look at where certain teams are right now in some major leagues. I bet 25 years ago no none expected that baseball franchises could succeed in Arizona or Colorado....but they have. In ten or more years we might look back on this era and say "Man, why didn't they get a football or basketball team (or whatever) in Las Vegas sooner...that team is doing so well!". Bad example I know, but you get my point.