OKC Wranglers?

[darkshadow1031]

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.

While reading this thread I've been thinking the same things: its more likely that the NBA will eventually cut teams rather than expand to more markets. While folding teams is a desperate measure, I doubt that we will see any more expansion. They have two 15 team confrences with 3 divisions of 5 team in each. (I think I explained that right, you know what I mean.) Adding a team in the NBA (or the NFL of that matter) would make this all unbalanced, like the MLB. On a side note, I wonder if a potential OKC franchise would have any emerald green elements like the Sonics.

[powersurge]

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.

While reading this thread I've been thinking the same things: its more likely that the NBA will eventually cut teams rather than expand to more markets. While folding teams is a desperate measure, I doubt that we will see any more expansion. They have two 15 team confrences with 3 divisions of 5 team in each. (I think I explained that right, you know what I mean.) Adding a team in the NBA (or the NFL of that matter) would make this all unbalanced, like the MLB. On a side note, I wonder if a potential OKC franchise would have any emerald green elements like the Sonics.

I wonder that too. If they do move, which elements will stay and which will go? I'm thinking they'll keep the green and maybe add a bronze element to it. That might look pretty distinctive. If I were a betting man I'd put my money on either a navy or red primary jersey, judging by the latest trends.

[mfoster]

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.

It is already inadequate. It was built on the cheap for about $80M and lacks a lot of spit and polish (loads of unfinished concrete all over the place). Bennett has already talked about getting *another* arena in OKC once he brings in the Sonics.

[Claystation360]

Well first off I hope if they do take everything that is the supersonics with them, they do it with respect they change like someone else brought up before , like a bronze and emerald i mean i like the colors and name they have now and it just wouldnt be right for another basketball city to have them . bronze and emerald still hold a tie back the gold and green they have now . 2nd they could have 32 teams because i don't seem them just coming in with one team with the alignment they have now , plus something i would do even thou there is no aBA to merge with well not one that could hold its own on the court . but i would split the league up into an american con and national con so that all the talent is not left on one side of the country like both LA team both miami and orlando would be broke up . but thats all me

[Gothamite]

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.

It is already inadequate. It was built on the cheap for about $80M and lacks a lot of spit and polish (loads of unfinished concrete all over the place). Bennett has already talked about getting *another* arena in OKC once he brings in the Sonics.

Wow. I didn't know that.

If the NBA lets him relocate out of Seattle to a small market that lacks an adequate arena, that says volumes about the relative health of the league. Bad news.

[powersurge]

Again, its would be a temporary fix. I just don't understand how a "premier" sports league would allow something like this to happen. If they do, I can't imagine that they'd actually let the team stay there.

This isn't 1977, the league is high profile now with major television contracts and big money players in big markets. Nothing against OKC, but nothing about that area remotely screams high profile or big market. Nothing about that area screams medium sized market. I think its a big step down from the Seattle area IMO. I know, I know, not ALL of the current NBA teams are in BIG markets. But lets not be naive here. Almost all of the current small market teams have had or are currently having tremendous trouble financially.

Go ask Memphis if the move from Vancouver was as fruit full as promised....or how about Sacremento exploring a move to Las Vegas. Not even a rabid fan base in a small market can keep a team situated. Its all about the $$$. I think the Sonics...or whatever they'll end up being will realize that fact REAL quickly.

[rams80]

Again, its would be a temporary fix. I just don't understand how a "premier" sports league would allow something like this to happen. If they do, I can't imagine that they'd actually let the team stay there.

This isn't 1977, the league is high profile now with major television contracts and big money players in big markets. Nothing against OKC, but nothing about that area remotely screams high profile or big market. Nothing about that area screams medium sized market. I think its a big step down from the Seattle area IMO. I know, I know, not ALL of the current NBA teams are in BIG markets. But lets not be naive here. Almost all of the current small market teams have had or are currently having tremendous trouble financially.

Go ask Memphis if the move from Vancouver was as fruit full as promised....or how about Sacremento exploring a move to Las Vegas. Not even a rabid fan base in a small market can keep a team situated. Its all about the $$$. I think the Sonics...or whatever they'll end up being will realize that fact REAL quickly.

Seeing as the Sonics owner is both from OKC, and loaded, I'm not sure he cares.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, he's already said this isn't about making more money in OKC. He has at least tacitly admitted that he can't.

I will be amazed if the NBA allows him to relocate, given that. It will indicate a league in serious trouble.

[leedsunited]

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.

It is already inadequate. It was built on the cheap for about $80M and lacks a lot of spit and polish (loads of unfinished concrete all over the place). Bennett has already talked about getting *another* arena in OKC once he brings in the Sonics.

jeez, I didn't know that. at some point, you just gotta draw the line in the sand and say "enough's enough".

[lilgump]

So, his reason to move is because he's loosing money.

Yet most likely he wont make money if he moves the team.

Sounds like theres no reason for the league to let him move the team.

[leedsunited]

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.

It is already inadequate. It was built on the cheap for about $80M and lacks a lot of spit and polish (loads of unfinished concrete all over the place). Bennett has already talked about getting *another* arena in OKC once he brings in the Sonics.

Wow. I didn't know that.

If the NBA lets him relocate out of Seattle to a small market that lacks an adequate arena, that says volumes about the relative health of the league. Bad news.

I realized the league was in bad shape the minute David Stern let George Shinn leave Charlotte for New Orleans - and franchise health became directly tied to how many spankin' new luxury boxes your local arena can cram in. Everything else is just grease on the slippery slope to disaster.

[Gothamite]

I can understand that one. Don't like it, but can understand it. And if OKC built him a new arena, I'd understand this move as well.

But moving from a large city with an inadequate arena to a small one with an inadequate area is lunacy.

[rams80]

So, his reason to move is because he's loosing money.

Yet most likely he wont make money if he moves the team.

Sounds like theres no reason for the league to let him move the team.

Except when he votes against your move in retaliation down the road. And the whole "Al Davis" thing....

[Gothamite]

Yeah, but if he loses ratings, they lose money. Direct correlation.

[rams80]

Yeah, but if he loses ratings, they lose money. Direct correlation.

I think folks would like to watch Kevin Durant play if he played in Amarillo, but that's just me. Outside of the Pacific Northwest though...how many people actually want to watch Seattle normally? I think the NBA's going to take less of a ratings hit that you'd think.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Just a quick local perspective:

During the 2006-2007 NBA season, we had Sonics ads on buses, newspapers, billboards, and television. The team sucked, and the only marketable star was Ray Allen.

In this, the beginning of the 2007-2008 NBA season, I've seen exactly ZERO Sonics ads anywhere. I read the local papers, take the bus every day, and watch local TV. Still, nothing. The most marketable star of the team is the odds-on favorite to be rookie of the year, and may just be one of the most unique talents in the history of the game.

I understand that Bennett is trying to break local attachment to the team. But deliberately tanking team attendance so he can move? I don't see how that makes economic sense, and I certainly don't see how the NBA would take a liking to that. If they want to maintain Seattle as a viable NBA market (and judging by past NBA relocation history, they would), you imagine there would be some intervention here.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, but if he loses ratings, they lose money. Direct correlation.

I think folks would like to watch Kevin Durant play if he played in Amarillo, but that's just me. Outside of the Pacific Northwest though...how many people actually want to watch Seattle normally? I think the NBA's going to take less of a ratings hit that you'd think.

Seattle itself is a pretty large television market - the 14th largest in the country, according to Nielsen. Oklahoma City is the 45th largest market. That's sure to be a ratings hit, unless Seattle is full of people who'll watch other teams just for the love of the game.

[rams80]

Yeah, but if he loses ratings, they lose money. Direct correlation.

I think folks would like to watch Kevin Durant play if he played in Amarillo, but that's just me. Outside of the Pacific Northwest though...how many people actually want to watch Seattle normally? I think the NBA's going to take less of a ratings hit that you'd think.

Seattle itself is a pretty large television market - the 14th largest in the country, according to Nielsen. Oklahoma City is the 45th largest market. That's sure to be a ratings hit, unless Seattle is full of people who'll watch other teams just for the love of the game.

I was thinking more in terms of the national tv package, and how the Sonics (pre-Durant anyway) didn't show up often on it.

I'll give you that this may be a concern, but it was apparent to me that Bennett wanted to move the team as soon as he acquired it...I'm pretty sure NBA owners noticed this as well. If they really wanted to keep Seattle as a market, I doubt they would have approved the sale.

[DDR]

Now, I haven't been following this too much. I'm a casual NBA fan. But, I thought the consensus was that OKC did such a good job with the Hornets, that they proved they could house an NBA franchise of their own. Is that not true? If the arena is really that inadequate, the NBA can't possibly let them move. It would set an awful precedent. You can't just let every billionaire that comes along buy a franchise and move them to his hometown because that's what he wants. This isn't Madden.

[Blue Falcon]

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

I'm surprised some league doesn't just drop the whole charade and just name a team the Slack-Jawed Yokels...or the Red-Staters.