Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Jerry Sandusky's Wife Tries To Run A Reporter Over

Simmons on the Sonics

Bill Simmons has a nice mailbag devoted to the Sonics potential move to OKC and the fans reaction to that move.  I can only imagine the heartache I would go through if that ever happened to my beloved Trailblazers.  I think this is well worth the read and makes me sad and mad at the same time.  I know the NBA is a business, but it is crud like this that makes you not want to be a fan.  Read it and be thankful that it isn't us.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080228&sportCat=nba

Comment 27 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

It's disgusting...
I wish at least one NBA owner (hello PA) would have the cojones to publicly say this isn't right.  But it sounds like that isn't the owner's best interest.  

David Stern has got to go if he allows this to happen.

by JasonT on Feb 28, 2008 8:55 PM PST reply actions  

We people from BE have our balls well hung!.
I can´t say the same of the rest of mankind.
"You, my friend, are an enigma" (einman77)

by amlmart1 on Feb 29, 2008 2:01 AM PST up reply actions  

Owners
          This is what is wrong with letting one man controlling a team. Politicians right now are trying to help clean up steroid use and Spygate, and someday they need to look at the owners and the power they wield in sports. It is way too much. They should be "owners" in name only, but not literally. These teams should be really owned by the cities that they are in. These owners have been raping cities for new facilities for a long time, and they need to be stopped. And it figures that David Stern is letting this latest round of owner idiocy happen. He is one of the biggest scumbags in sports.

by PABlzrfn on Feb 28, 2008 9:00 PM PST reply actions  

Absolutely
Between eating dinner, talking to my wife and watching this crappy fakers / Heat game, I read that entire piece. It makes me sad that the NBA doesn't give a rats ass about the Sonics, Seattle or the fans. It's ridiculous. The city paid for Key a mere 13 years ago........WTF do they want????

I would be heartbroken if the Blazers left town. Remember how it felt just a couple years ago when there was talk of the possibility?

by iDea on Feb 28, 2008 9:55 PM PST reply actions  

This sickens me.
This whole situation is ruining NBA basketball for me. My loyalty for the Sonics is only a half notch lower than my loyalty for the Blazers, and that's primarily just because I have to pick a side when they play each other. I live in Seattle, go to Sonics games, and work with Sonics fans. I was looking forward to years of wearing my Roy jersey at KeyArena and talking trash to my friends wearing green and gold.

I'm absolutely sickened by the fact that Stern has aided and abetted the destruction of this team. Seriously, the Sonics won the division in 2005, and two and a half years later Bennett and Stern act justified in moving the team? Get real. Stern is willing to sacrifice a successful franchise in a major market in order to help his longtime buddy get a team in a tiny market, and the other teams' owners are sitting back and letting it happen.

by bocious on Feb 28, 2008 10:01 PM PST reply actions  

Sickning
I hate this,it makes me sick every time I hear about this story.  The terrible part about this is that Stern and Bennet are really good old friends and there is a good chance that this whole thing was planned out before bennet bought the sonics.  This is just disgusting.

by ggassen85 on Feb 28, 2008 10:04 PM PST reply actions  

How about David Stern' promise
to OKC that they would get a team of their own if they hosted NO and not an expansion team? This move was cooked long before Bennett bought the Sonics by Stern's determination to make an example of a city that did not fork over bucks for a new arena (especially when they had already done so for MLB and NFL teams).

by lee3022 on Feb 28, 2008 11:23 PM PST up reply actions  

Devaluing
I can't help but think this devalues all NBA franchises, as fans are less likely to grant lifelong devotion to an entity that may desert them.

by Engineering Problem on Feb 28, 2008 10:25 PM PST reply actions  

You know
If a city decides to help fund an arena or whatever for a team, they should own a piece of that team as well.  Why should the tax payers help pay for a team when the owners are already worth 100+ million only to get screwed like this.  I'm not sure what incentives cities get for having teams...profit sharing, increased tax revenues?

by Philthyanimal on Feb 28, 2008 10:25 PM PST reply actions  

The league also needs to realize
that dollars and cents are cyclical but reputation and loyalty are not.  You can replace much of the revenue in Seattle if the team just starts playing well (which seems possible in the next 5-6 years or so).  You can probably even generate support for an arena at that time.  But once you move them to Oklahoma City you can never get back that Seattle tradition and branding in the same way.  Nobody will have even a thimbleful of loyalty or investment in the OKC Sonics.  It'll take 40+ years to develop it in the same way and it might never develop if they don't win a championship like they did in Seattle.  Will the team be in OKC for 40 years to find out?

Does that means I think you should never move a team?  Of course not.  If your experiment was an utter failure like New Orleans thirty years ago or Vancouver last decade you have to.  The marriages just weren't right.  But 40 years say that's not the case in Seattle.

--Dave

by Dave on Feb 28, 2008 11:24 PM PST up reply actions  

That's exactly
what I told my wife last night. It's not like we're talking about an expansion team here.

SAVE OUR BLAZERS, er.......SONICS

by iDea on Feb 29, 2008 7:04 AM PST up reply actions  

If you don't like it, buy a team and donate it
to the city of your choice.

We live in a country that believes in the right of private ownership of property.  Which means you have the right to do with your property as you see fit.  If you can afford a major league sports franchise and you want to bring it to your home town, you have the right to try and acquire one and then move it.

The Sonics have lost money for at least 6 straight years.  And it's not as if they were a cellar dwelling franchise all that time.  2 - 3 years ago I would have traded Portland's roster for their's in a heartbeat.  That means that either Seattle isn't interested in supporting the team, or more likely, that it's impossible to make money without the revenue stream from corporate luxury boxes.  Now if I have a choice of investing more of my money into a new arena or having someone else build one for me, I'm going to lean towards having someone build it for me.  Unless you're in Paul Allen's tax bracket, most people would do the same.

I believe the league currently does not allow a city to own a team.  I'm all in support of getting that changed.  I'd sue the league if necessary.  But until a city decides it wants to own and operate a sports franchise, it is all academic.  Denigrating either the Sonics ownership group or David Stern is akin to being a whiney, liberal, freedom hating, incompetent ass.  In other words, you probably vote Democratic.

Besides, why sweat it.  Seattle will get the Hornets the year after the Sonics leave.  Bennett and Shinn may even swap teams.

by timg56 on Feb 29, 2008 8:00 AM PST reply actions  

So taxpayers
are suppose to buy a multi-multi-million dollar facility for a private business (without any of the owners money), AND be expected to pay for renovations every 13 years? $38,000,000+ a year is reasonable to expect?

by iDea on Feb 29, 2008 8:22 AM PST up reply actions  

Not if they don't want to.
Everybody has to prioritize.  I have to decide if I want put a new roof on my house (it needs it) or maybe go on a nice vacation to Europe this summer with the family.  Or send the money to my in-laws in Korea, so they don't have to sell their home.

It's simply a fact of the market place in professional sports that more cities want a major league franchise than there are franchises.  Couple that with teams needing the revenue streams that coporate luxury boxes generate and you get the trend towards publically financed stadiums and arenas.  Do I agree with it?  Depends.  Philosophically, no.  But if came down to losing a team that means a lot to me, then maybe I go along with it.

I work up here in Seattle.  Personally, I tend to think the City of Seattle has a lot more pressing matters that need attention (read dollars) than building a new arena for the Sonics.  If that means losing the Sonics, then that's tough on Sonic's fans, but they are just one constituancy.  You don't make Clay Bennett into the devil.  

What if the City of Portland decided that they had a low income housing and a homeless problem and the solution was to require every new homeowner to take in a family or at the minimum, provide space in their yard for a tent and portapotty?  That's basically the same thing.  Afterall, people buy homes in Portland because it's a wonderful place to live.  Therefore it is important to keep it wonderful by getting the homeless off the streets.  That certainly outweighs any inconvienence an individual private property owner might experience.  That's basically what people want to do to Bennett.  They don't care if he loses money, so long as they aren't inconvienenced by losing their team.

by timg56 on Feb 29, 2008 10:41 AM PST up reply actions  

Hey Jackass!!!!!
I think David Stern is a piece of shit, I think Bennet is the devil, and I think how the are extorting the city of city and all sonic fans is disgusting and immoral, and I"M A REPUBLICAN!  What party your affiliated to shouldn't matter on this subject, this is simply whats right and whats wrong and what those two asswhole are doing is flat out wrong.  If corporations and private companies are going to extort and threaten communities and local governments I truley believe that the feds should step in and put a stop to this.  If we are gonna pay for staiums or arenas then force the owner to give part of the ownership to the city or make it illegal to publicly fund areans or stadiums for pro sport teams.  We dont pay for skyscrapers for large corporations, so why should we pay for stadiums for private compnaies owned by billionares.

by ggassen85 on Feb 29, 2008 8:39 AM PST up reply actions  

Actually, taxpayers often pay for skyscrapers...
... through tax breaks and incentives.

And the people who own these buildings - they lease them out and make money.  It's a business decision.  Does the expected revenue stream from leasing justify the capital investment needed to acquire the land and construct the tower.

Big businesses move their corporate headquarters all the time.  Look how many have left Portland.  And cities compete for these companies, offering tax breaks and civic improvements (like picking up the tab for new infrustructure such as sewers, roads, etc).  How is that different from moving a sports business?  The only difference is that a sports team has people emotionally involved with it that don't work for it.

As for people's part affiliation having anything to do with where one stand's on this issue - that was more to get a rise than meant as an undeniable truth.  Apparently it worked, as you feel the need to name call.  But thanks for helping prove my point.  

by timg56 on Feb 29, 2008 10:52 AM PST up reply actions  

exucse me
Let me remind you that you started the name calling:

"Denigrating either the Sonics ownership group or David Stern is akin to being a whiney, liberal, freedom hating, incompetent ass.  In other words, you probably vote Democratic."

And theres a hudge diffrence between buildings for corporations and areanas.  Citites DO NOT pay for the buildings headquarters for corporations.  Giving tax breaks and incentives is not the same as ponying up 500 million for an arena.  The diiffernce between moving coprporations and sports teams is actually hudge.  For one thing most cities dont own office towers, companies, investment firms, and banks do, but  cities end up owing arenas and stadiums when they are built.  Corporations may ask for tax-breaks and things like and leave if they dont recieve them, but they never ask cities to give them 500 mill to build new headquarters like the sonics are trying to do.  Thats the big diffrence, corporation FINANCE there own offices while sports franchises EXTORT cities and its citizens out of millions to build them arenas.  But of course if you decide to simplify the matter as you have then any moron could make it seem like they are the same thing.

by ggassen85 on Feb 29, 2008 11:15 AM PST up reply actions  

Actually it's more a case of the shoe fitting.
I didn't specifically single out someone.  

I'm not going to get into an economics argument with you.  It wouldn't be fair, since you don't recognize that paying for improvements directly or offsetting costs with tax breaks is for the most part, revuene neutral for the jurisdiction.   Or that a sports team is a corporation and subject to many of the same forces as any other corporation, including factors that lead to relocation.  

And as a private corporation, it is going to operate in what it feels is in it's best interest.  As long as it doesn't break any laws or regulations, it has the right to do that.  

by timg56 on Mar 2, 2008 7:33 PM PST up reply actions  

hmmm....
so any time an owner wants to move a team that's his/her perogative?  

Seems a little ridiculous if you ask me.  

So if PA wants to move the Blazers to Seattle or Orange County that's ok with you?  I mean, hey he's the owner, and pretty much can do whatever he wants...this is America!  Screw the fans...the only thing that matters is what daddy warbucks decides!  

Seattle is not some expansion team that has been in a city for a few years...they have been there over 40 years.  I'm sorry, but the fans of the Sonics have more ownership over the team than Clay Bennett's Oklahoma business group who's been involved with the team for what...2 years?  

If David Stern allows the Sonics to be stolen from Seattle, I think it sets a dangerous precendent. Basically, the line will go like this from owners to the city "either you pay for a for a new arena that I want every so many years (so I can make even more money), or I will hijack your team out of here."  Does that seem right?  

If Clay Bennett's group do not like the Sonics in the Seattle, then they should have not bought the team in the first place and should sell it.  This seems like the most reasonable solution.

by JasonT on Feb 29, 2008 9:05 AM PST up reply actions  

Move them!
I just want to see the smug Seattlites get what they deserve.  I grew up having to drive hours just to see my favorite stars play such as Ken Griffey Jr, Edgar Martinez, Jay Buhner, or Cortez Kennedy.  It's good that a new generation of kids will be driving hours to see superstars like Greg Oden or Brandon Roy.

by robrun2 on Feb 29, 2008 10:58 AM PST reply actions  

You've got to be kidding.
I wouldn't even wish this on L*kers fans. There's a big difference between trashing another team's fans for their fandom and wishing to permanently remove the source of their pleaure.

And seriously, you aren't the only fan of an out-of-town team. Isn't it a little childish to blame the residents of a city for the fact that your favorite team plays there and not where you live? If that were acceptable behavior, half the people on this site would have it out for the people of Portland, including the guy who runs the site.

by bocious on Feb 29, 2008 1:15 PM PST up reply actions  

I hate to be the one that has to break the news
to you, but this happens all the time.  

The following NBA franchises have relocated at least once.  In some cases, they are in their 4th city.

Hawks
Wizards
Pistons
Warriors
Rockets
Lakers
Clippers
Grizzlies
Hornets
76er's
Kings
Jazz

That's just the NBA.  Moving a team, while tramatic to it's fans, is a long established practice.  What's so different about the Sonics?

by timg56 on Feb 29, 2008 11:00 AM PST reply actions  

Lots of differences
Number one:  Sonics have been in Seattle for 41 years, and those have a been a succesful 41 years.

Number 2:  This whole arena thing is an excuse made up by clay bennent and David Stern to move the team.  You see they keep on saying that Key arean is too small, too old, dosen't have enough luxury boxes, and that they cant possible survice there.  So there grand plan is to move from the 14 largest marktet to the 45 largest.  On top of that Clay bennet says he needs a 500 mill dollar stadium to stray in Seattle but he is more then happy to move to the Ford center in OKC which only cost 92 mill to make and has less luxury boxes then Key arena.

Look I understand that moving teams is part of sports, but this is a different situation becasue these organization has been sucessful in seattle, the reason that they have for moving are not valid in this situation.  Whats happening here is the David Stern and Clay Bennet are long time friends, and what happened is they made an agreement to move a team to OKC when the situation presented it self.  Seattle presented it self as the perfect situation becasue Stern and Bennet could create the illusion that key arena was not acceptable, and since there were only a few years left on the lease they could move out of Seattle rather quickly.  If you study sport business and do reasarch on the situation you see that this move makes absolutly no sense econmicly for the franchise or the NBA.  The only reason David Stern is allowing this to happen is becasue Clay Bennet is his friend, and if Bennet moves a team to OK he will be considered a hero in his home town.  So all this is just David Stern doing his friend a favor INSTEAD of doing whats best for the NBA and its fans which is HIS JOB as the NBA comish.  If you would just take the time to do some research on this specific situation you will see why this is different then other moves and why so many people are disgusted by what going on here.

by ggassen85 on Feb 29, 2008 11:35 AM PST up reply actions  

So we are to believe that the average fan
knows more about running the league and what is in it's best interest than the Commissioner does?  You know for a fact that Stern and Bennett are close personal friends and that the primary reason Stern is not fighting to keep the Sonics in Seattle is out of this friendship?

Were this true, Stern wouldn't last out the season.  The other owners would insist on his resignation.  I'm not anywhere close to being an expert on the business end of an NBA franchise.  However I believe I'm not going too far out on a limb when I argue that the most important revenue source outside of the national tv contract is a team's local cable network, followed by corporate (or deep pocket) support through luxury suites.  Just about every franchise in the big three has built or pushed for venues with such suites.  It is less important to fill individual seats than it is to have your boxes sold out.  The way they usuallyt work is they are sold based on all events that occur in the venue, not just the team's games.  

While market size will impact the size of the cable deal a team might get, it doesn't necessarily mean that much in terms of box sales.  As long as there is sufficient demand for those, the owner doesn't care.

By the way, not sure where the $500 million came from.  The numbers that have been bandied about up here have been in the $300 - $380 million range.  There is also the fact that OKC is supposed to be upgrading the Ford Center.  Finally, while I don't know how many boxes the Fox Center has, unless it has zero, it has more than Key Arena.  I was just there to see the Blazer game and I didn't see a single luxury suite.  The place looks at least 20 years behind the Rose Garden.

by timg56 on Mar 2, 2008 7:17 PM PST up reply actions  

Simmons part two
He posted a new mailbag with even more letters from fans.  Completely and utterly depressing.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080229&sportCat=nba

by blazermaniac32 on Feb 29, 2008 1:46 PM PST reply actions  

Hopefully more to come.
I was just about to link to this, too. There are so many good quotes in Bill Simmons' mailbag. Even if this move is inevitable, I'm glad so many people are standing up and vocalizing.

by bocious on Feb 29, 2008 1:59 PM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The ultimate coverage and analysis of the Portland Trail Blazers.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
The Blazers Future Regarding Free Agent Signings
Small
Thunderous Manboobies
Img_0878_1__small
Why do we hate LaMarcus Aldridge?
Small
Oregonlive "journalists" 2 new posts...same old drivel
2474796688_7cdc78828f_o_small
Greg Oden Suffers Life-Ending Injury; Gets 3-Year Extension

Recent FanPosts

Small
The Blazers' Future Regarding Trades
Small
WHAT TO DO WITH NIC BATUM BECAUSE WE WILL LOSE HIM IF NOT TRADED.
Small
Trade that helps us out now and the future
Small
How can the All-Star game be more fun and competitive?
Small
Earl Boykins!
Small
LaMarcus Aldridge about to become the 10th highest scorer in Blazers franchise  history
Small
New trade that gets us a new point and a three point shooter
Small
Portland getting.....
Small
The Sun Behind the Clouds: Blazers still on track.

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

It's pretty clear that the season is over already ;)
Double rainbow of sadness:

1) JBay is getting shorter
2) We never got to see him with a mustache

I miss you tiny raptor man.

via The Basketball Jones http://blogs.thescore.com/tbj/2012/02/09/things-of-note-for-february-9-2012/#more-34561
Blazers Broadcasters Mike Barrett and Mike Rice re-enacted NBA referee Scott Foster's controversial goaltending call on Portland Trail Blazers forward LaMarcus Aldridge, who was defending Oklahoma City Thunder All-Star forward Kevin Durant, during this week's edition of Blazers Courtside. Remarkably, no one was injured during the taping of this segment.

Original video of the play here. 
Quotes from the players and coaches here. 
The NBA admitting it got the call wrong here. 
Dave's  extended thoughts here. 
BlazersMakr's FanShot: Major Vegas action on OKC prior to tip here. 
Audio of Chad Doing of 750 AM The Game going HAM on Foster here.

OK, that should just about wrap up the goaltending discussion.

Courtside video via Blazers Broadcasting cameraman John Curry.

-- Ben Golliver | benjamin.golliver@gmail.com | Twitter
In 2008 Tim Donaghy indicated that Scott Foster was a ref that also fixed games
Blazers Owner Paul Allen Ranked No. 3 American Philanthropist In 2011

Recent FanShots

Bill Simmons: Deron Williams To Dallas 'Is A Lock'
LaMarcus Aldridge Needs Support Around Him
LaMarcus Aldridge Finds Out He's An All-Star With His Teammates
Congratulations to Portland Trail Blazers forward LaMarcus Aldridge, on his first All Star selection.

As seen on www.trailblazers.com
AWoj: Aldridge an All Star
CRAZY stat from Houston game
NBA MVP Rankings... LMA @ #10
Celtics interested in Rondo - Gasol swap? ...

+ New FanShot All FanShots >


Editors

Kitten_small Dave

Headshotsmall_small Ben Golliver

Lead Moderators

Getfuzzy-satchel_small Timmay!

Bucky3_small Cablinasian

Authors

Plainlc_small Storyteller

Moderators

Lamb_small T Darkstar

Small douglast

Terryporter_small prezofdeath

Small usmcr3049

Lrg_magpie_small Corvid

Wallpaper_small geoffm