Should the LA Clippers move north and be the new Seattle Sonics?

[Quillz]

The Clippers have never really been "LA's basketball team" the way the Lakers have always been. In fact, the Clippers have just never really belonged anywhere, moving from Buffalo to San Diego to Los Angeles. That got me thinking about a new possible move... Up north to Seattle, where they'd become the new SuperSonics.

I believe that Seattle still has the legal rights to the SuperSonics franchise name, colors and history. I believe the arena they played in still exists, too. Do you think such a move would even be possible? The only change I could see if this was to actually happen would be that Seattle would be placed in the Pacific Division instead of the Northwest Division, but that still makes sense, considering Seattle is right on the coast.

I just think people, in general, would probably prefer to see the NBA return to Seattle rather than for LA to maintain one storied franchise and one "anything but storied" franchise.

[rams80]

I hate to break it to you, but as long as there isn't a new arena in Seattle, this isn't viable.

[The_Admiral]

The Clippers have made huge long-term commitments to staying in Los Angeles. They're never leaving greater LA. They're not even gonna move to Anaheim. They couldn't be happier with their current arrangement, stupid as it may seem to the rest of the world.

Besides, how can you say Seattle should have a professional basketball team again and then give them the Clippers?

[aci]

I agree with the admiral. Just because the Clippers are under the Lakers' shadow doesn't mean they are in trouble. They are financially sound (shocking considering their on-court lack of success), draw well and have a fanbase (which includes me, although I hardly live in the LA area haha).

If you want to move a team back to Seattle, convince them to build a new arena and then either expand the league or give them the Grizzlies or Kings.

[Saintsfan]

I am not saying they will, but I think this is potentially a good idea. The Lakers would still have the Warriors as potential intra state rivals, the Blazers would get the Sonics back as local(ish) rivals, and I really don't think the Clippers are ever going to be all that succesful in LA. Even if they won the Larry O'Brien, they would still be the number 2 team in LA.

[BBTV]

Most (not all) of you don't seem to understand the business aspect of pro sports. There doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason for the Clippers owners to want to move. They may not have all the sweet revenue sources like their own arena or cable network, but from all accounts, they have a pretty sweet setup in L.A., and just by being in that market, they're making money almost by default.

Now, from an average fan's standpoint, of course they should move (or be contracted.) They're completely irrelevant. Of course, the same could be said about five or six other NBA teams too, except that the Clippers just happen to play in the same market as one of the most relevant teams in the history of the sport. Think about this, though - we're at a point where the NBA is moving to Oklahoma City. If that's your most viable option at this point, there may be other issues that need to be worked out before trying to tap into new markets, or force things to work in previously failed ones.

[Saintsfan]

Most (not all) of you don't seem to understand the business aspect of pro sports. There doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason for the Clippers owners to want to move. They may not have all the sweet revenue sources like their own arena or cable network, but from all accounts, they have a pretty sweet setup in L.A., and just by being in that market, they're making money almost by default.

Now, from an average fan's standpoint, of course they should move (or be contracted.) They're completely irrelevant. Of course, the same could be said about five or six other NBA teams too, except that the Clippers just happen to play in the same market as one of the most relevant teams in the history of the sport. Think about this, though - we're at a point where the NBA is moving to Oklahoma City. If that's your most viable option at this point, there may be other issues that need to be worked out before trying to tap into new markets, or force things to work in previously failed ones.

Other than the arena issue, was Seattle a failed market? My feeling was that Seattle was a pretty good market for the game, just they couldn't get the planning for a new arena. Given that the name, colors and logos were all retained by the city/NBA, its obviously not a market that was given up on. I understand what your saying that LA is a comfortable market for the Clippers, but they are always going to play second fiddle to the Lakers in that market, even if they became reasonably succesful. I think Clippers will never be consistently succesful whilst in the Lakers shadow, and could potentially push on and be succesful up the coast in Seattle! I don't know how the business would work, in terms of profits, but I would imagine that the only reason LA remains a comfortable market is that it is guaranteed to work, but wouldn't a succesful Seattle franchise potentially do better than a mediocre Clippers in LA franchise. The risk being a mediocre Seattle franchise might do worse than it did in LA.

[BBTV]

Most (not all) of you don't seem to understand the business aspect of pro sports. There doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason for the Clippers owners to want to move. They may not have all the sweet revenue sources like their own arena or cable network, but from all accounts, they have a pretty sweet setup in L.A., and just by being in that market, they're making money almost by default.

Now, from an average fan's standpoint, of course they should move (or be contracted.) They're completely irrelevant. Of course, the same could be said about five or six other NBA teams too, except that the Clippers just happen to play in the same market as one of the most relevant teams in the history of the sport. Think about this, though - we're at a point where the NBA is moving to Oklahoma City. If that's your most viable option at this point, there may be other issues that need to be worked out before trying to tap into new markets, or force things to work in previously failed ones.

Other than the arena issue, was Seattle a failed market? My feeling was that Seattle was a pretty good market for the game, just they couldn't get the planning for a new arena. Given that the name, colors and logos were all retained by the city/NBA, its obviously not a market that was given up on. I understand what your saying that LA is a comfortable market for the Clippers, but they are always going to play second fiddle to the Lakers in that market, even if they became reasonably succesful. I think Clippers will never be consistently succesful whilst in the Lakers shadow, and could potentially push on and be succesful up the coast in Seattle! I don't know how the business would work, in terms of profits, but I would imagine that the only reason LA remains a comfortable market is that it is guaranteed to work, but wouldn't a succesful Seattle franchise potentially do better than a mediocre Clippers in LA franchise. The risk being a mediocre Seattle franchise might do worse than it did in LA.

I think you are missing the point. Your definition of success does not equal the owners / investors definition of success. By all accounts, the Clippers are a success... to the people who's opinion counts most. Remember - winning and losing really only matters to the fans. In the end, it's about the bottom line, and the Clippers owners appear to be doing just fine, without exerting energy on many of the other things that some of the other franchises deal with. Being second fiddle probably works into their favor, to be honest..

The arena thing in Seattle cannot be understated. Is the market a failure because of fan support? No - by all accounts, it was successful. But not having the backing of the civic leaders and not being able to get public funds (regardless of your or my opinion on using said funds for things like arenas) is huge, and I'm not sure why the league would want to return to that situation any time soon.

[DustDevil61]

I'll admit...this is one of the moves that would benefit the franchise in question. However, as long as Donald Sterling is alive, the Clippers aren't leaving Los Angeles. I'll agree--the Clips will always be second banana to the Lakers, no matter how good they get.

However, in 2015 or so, the Memphis Grizzlies' lease is up, and if they don't drastically make a turnaround, then they could head (back) to the Northwest area.

Back on topic, however, the Clippers have pretty much been a perennial joke since they landed in LA, and a move to Seattle would be good (provided that they get on track for a new building). The league isn't going back until the arena thing is settled, however. If I was commish, then I would have make the Sonics stay the extra 2 years on the lease and try to work something out. If not, then I'd let them move to OKC.

[The_Admiral]

i think the clippers shound move to mars!!!

[TFoA]

The Clippers have made huge long-term commitments to staying in Los Angeles. They're never leaving greater LA. They're not even gonna move to Anaheim. They couldn't be happier with their current arrangement, stupid as it may seem to the rest of the world.

Besides, how can you say Seattle should have a professional basketball team again and then give them the Clippers?

Exactly. IIRC, Donald Sterling is supposedly making a killing with the Clippers playing in Staples. We all know that Sterling will do whatever it takes to get some more money, and as long as they're making it at Staples, then they aren't gonna move and probably won't ever move.

[thruby]

i don't care who it is, i just want a team back in Seattle.

www.sonicsgate.org good watch if you loved seattle like i did, or even if you've never watched a VERY biased account of the situation. hahahaha.

also, to the person who said the sonics still get the colors, logo and history stuff, they only exclusively get the name and colors, the history is a 'shared' history.

[Still MIGHTY]

The Clippers have made huge long-term commitments to staying in Los Angeles. They're never leaving greater LA. They're not even gonna move to Anaheim. They couldn't be happier with their current arrangement, stupid as it may seem to the rest of the world.

Besides, how can you say Seattle should have a professional basketball team again and then give them the Clippers?

Exactly. IIRC, Donald Sterling is supposedly making a killing with the Clippers playing in Staples. We all know that Sterling will do whatever it takes to get some more money, and as long as they're making it at Staples, then they aren't gonna move and probably won't ever move.

Yup.

Sterling has never tried to make a competitive team. He isn't like some owners that make themselves known in the direction of the team and taht he wants success and he wants it now.

Sterling is ALL about the cash.

He could care less. As long as the checks are signed, he isn't moving.

[BaltimoreFan]

I think you are missing the point. Your definition of success does not equal the owners / investors definition of success. By all accounts, the Clippers are a success... to the people who's opinion counts most. Remember - winning and losing really only matters to the fans. In the end, it's about the bottom line, and the Clippers owners appear to be doing just fine, without exerting energy on many of the other things that some of the other franchises deal with. Being second fiddle probably works into their favor, to be honest..

Yea, I would guess being overshadowed in the #2 media market is a lot better than being in the spotlight of a lesser market (especially if it has an outdated arena).

The Clippers have started to interest me lately. They seem to have a lot of young talent. If they can put together some sustained success, I imagine they could become a pretty successful and recognizable team. Of course, alot of this is because they are in LA.

[IceCap]

i don't care who it is, i just want a team back in Seattle.

www.sonicsgate.org good watch if you loved seattle like i did, or even if you've never watched a VERY biased account of the situation. hahahaha.

also, to the person who said the sonics still get the colors, logo and history stuff, they only exclusively get the name and colors, the history is a 'shared' history.

Just say no to the Cleveland deal.

[MadmanLA]

I want to add some perspective to this...now personally, I never liked the fact that the Clippers and Lakers share an arena, but TFoA and DustDevil are correct in that the Clips have a pretty favorable lease at Staples Center. I'm not totally sure about the numbers, but I think they pay about a $1 million or so a year in rent there. Their lease is up in five more years (2013-14), in which Sterling (if he's still alive by 2014) will be in his early 80s. It's my belief that if and when Sterling decides to sell the team (and this is a man that NEVER sells anything), the new owner would more than likely move to a city hungry for a NBA team, whether it be in-market Anaheim or another market altogether (Seattle, Kansas City, whomever). The team has spent plenty on payroll in recent years (they're currently at or near the salary cap), spent $50 million on a beautiful practice and team headquarters facility in one of the most expensive areas of Los Angeles, and just recently inked new radio and television deals for at least five to six years in length.

The problem right now, is the very questionable and predictable coaching by Mike Dunleavy; he's done a decent job assembling the roster, but he and this team still find ways to blow winnable games, injuries notwithstanding. Virtually every fellow Clipper fan I talk to wants Dunleavy gone, or at least, stay on as general manager only. The talent is there, and anyone using the same excuses about the Clippers' ineptitude (Sterling, in particular) is mistaken; it's the crappy coaching by Mike Dunleavy, plain and simple.

[Wasatch]

No, I don?t suspect the Clippers will be moving anytime soon! However, I do think there?s a good chance the Hornets could relocate to Seattle in the next 5 years.

[illwauk]

Most (not all) of you don't seem to understand the business aspect of pro sports. There doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason for the Clippers owners to want to move. They may not have all the sweet revenue sources like their own arena or cable network, but from all accounts, they have a pretty sweet setup in L.A., and just by being in that market, they're making money almost by default.

Now, from an average fan's standpoint, of course they should move (or be contracted.) They're completely irrelevant. Of course, the same could be said about five or six other NBA teams too, except that the Clippers just happen to play in the same market as one of the most relevant teams in the history of the sport. Think about this, though - we're at a point where the NBA is moving to Oklahoma City. If that's your most viable option at this point, there may be other issues that need to be worked out before trying to tap into new markets, or force things to work in previously failed ones.

Other than the arena issue, was Seattle a failed market? My feeling was that Seattle was a pretty good market for the game, just they couldn't get the planning for a new arena. Given that the name, colors and logos were all retained by the city/NBA, its obviously not a market that was given up on. I understand what your saying that LA is a comfortable market for the Clippers, but they are always going to play second fiddle to the Lakers in that market, even if they became reasonably succesful. I think Clippers will never be consistently succesful whilst in the Lakers shadow, and could potentially push on and be succesful up the coast in Seattle! I don't know how the business would work, in terms of profits, but I would imagine that the only reason LA remains a comfortable market is that it is guaranteed to work, but wouldn't a succesful Seattle franchise potentially do better than a mediocre Clippers in LA franchise. The risk being a mediocre Seattle franchise might do worse than it did in LA.

Since the Sounders have set up shop, I can't imagine the necessary demand for a NBA franchise (and by extension, a new arena) will ever happen. After just a couple years the Sounders have a bigger following than I can ever recall the Sonics having.

But sadly, there's at least a handful of owners that are doing exactly what Donald Sterling is doing (sitting on a good arena deal and refusing to put a competitive team on the floor) and the NBA, not caring what happens as long as they make money, will continue to look the other way.

[Wasatch]

Since the Sounders have set up shop, I can't imagine the necessary demand for a NBA franchise (and by extension, a new arena) will ever happen. After just a couple years the Sounders have a bigger following than I can ever recall the Sonics having.

I agree! In fact, I can?t believe just how many Seattleites don?t miss the Sonics, it?s almost like they never existed!

But sadly, there's at least a handful of owners that are doing exactly what Donald Sterling is doing (sitting on a good arena deal and refusing to put a competitive team on the floor) and the NBA, not caring what happens as long as they make money, will continue to look the other way.

This is what surprises me. It?s not like an NBA franchise can be considered a great investment when so many of them never bring in any real money?..unless you bought the team back in the 80?s and it?s now worth 200-400 mil.

[illwauk]

This is what surprises me. It?s not like an NBA franchise can be considered a great investment when so many of them never bring in any real money?..unless you bought the team back in the 80?s and it?s now worth 200-400 mil.

That's what I used to think, but then I read about how Herb Kohl is the second richest Senator behind John Kerry, and it was all because the Bucks had (apparently) doubled in value over the past 3 years. It was a couple years ago when I read that, but the Bucks haven't been relevant since 2001. The Bradley Center has been letting them rent the building for next to nothing to make them want to stay around. But if they did leave, I doubt Milwaukee would be crying much harder than Seattle, if at all.