Bill Simmons' Articles on the Sonics

[pkhoya03]

I'm sure many of you guys have seen these articles by now, but I didn't see a thread about it. In case you didn't, Bill Simmons dedicated an entire mailbag for Sonics (and other) fans to vent about the potential Sonics move to OKC. He highlights quite a few facts that people outside of Seattle probably aren't aware of. As a result of the huge outpouring, he put together another post the next day. Like him or hate him, very good reads. They're pretty long so I suggest printing them out and reading them in pieces.

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

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

Btw, the 2nd to last one in the 2nd article moves me every time. You have to watch the youtube clip to get the full experience.

"Here's why the Seattle situation should matter to everyone who cares about sports: After being part of the city for 41 years, the Sonics are being stolen away for dubious reasons while every NBA owner and executive allows it to happen, including David Stern, the guy who's supposed to be policing this stuff. I think it's reprehensible to watch someone hijack a franchise away from the people who cared about the team and loved it and nurtured it through the years. It belittles not just the good people of Seattle, but everyone who loves sports and believes it provides a unique and valuable connection for a city, a community, family members and friends."

[seattlehoya11]

Yeah that article was amazing. My friend and I both got our messages in that mailbag. Watching those '96 playoff highlight reels after probably 5 years of not thinking about them once was quite the experience.

Hopefully that second article demonstrates to everyone who is apathetic about the happenings way up in the Upper-left corner of the country that this is a HUGE deal.

[SDHoya]

Mar 4, 2008 16:13:00 GMT -5 seattlehoya11 said:

Yeah that article was amazing. My friend and I both got our messages in that mailbag. Watching those '96 playoff highlight reels after probably 5 years of not thinking about them once was quite the experience.

Hopefully that second article demonstrates to everyone who is apathetic about the happenings way up in the Upper-left corner of the country that this is a HUGE deal.

Why is this a huge deal? I just skimmed the articles, because, frankly, I don't care at all about the Sonics (save for #22), or at least not enough to read 30,000 words about them. Other than an obvious outpouring of fan support, which is to be expected from a group of fans at a time of crisis like this (hell, even the Expos fans came out of the woodwork right before they were moved), I didn't notice much at all that was particularly moving. But I didn't read it all, so could someone who actually has read this sum it up for me?

I admit I am somewhat ignorant of the situation, but what I have understood is that the Sonics have for quite a while had one of the lowest attendences in the NBA and have an old, small arena with not enough luxury box space and the state/city/whoever refuses to fund a new one. Nothing wrong with making a stand here, personally I am opposed to most cases of public financing of sports facilities, but if the Sonics are hemorraging money, why is this such a scandal?

[seattlehoya11]

Well SD you've pretty much got the NBA/Clay Bennett's line down pat. The problems are a lot more complex than that. First of all, Clay Bennett (the owner) is basically extorting the tax payers of Washington by claiming that unless they approve a $500 million new arena, he will move the team. The Arena's $200 million renovations in 1995 were (and still are) paid for by taxpayers. The argument, which is becoming more and more undeniable is that the new ownership is only pretending to try to keep the team in the city, when in reality they were gone as soon as they were sold. The fact is, the city has already given hundreds of millions of dollars to wealthy owners to "save" other teams, we're kind of tapped out.

The attendance point is a valid one but consider this. How much more interest do you think there would be for a team that has 2 top 5 draft picks this year and another couple first rounders coming next year if it wasn't perfectly clear they were going to leave. The Sonics have to potential to be one of the most exciting teams if not next year then definitely in the next couple. Just picture a team with a potential starting 5 of Durant, Green, Jerryd Bayless, DJ Augustine and a center. That's a team that would bring out the fans.

Basically the point is the team has been around for 41 years. That's gotta mean something. As much as the owners or the commish want everyone to think it's the citizens of Seattle's fault, the team is really just being hijacked.

[seattlehoya11]

Oh I should probably add for good measure that I'm 100% biased on everything related to Seattle sports. I'm sure you guys figured that one out.

[pkhoya03]

At issue is not just the Sonics. I see it as an issue greedy ownership and short-sighted commissioner. I've only been a fan of the Sonics for less than a year (once Jeff got here), but what we have here is a tag-team of David Stern and Clay Bennett saying "build us a stadium or we'll leave" threat. Since the city and the taxpayers refuse to, having already paid a ton for the Seahawks and the Mariners, Stern publicly admonishes the residents as not caring about the team. What he doesn't mention, and what no one outside of Seattle realizes, is that the tax payers already forked over $150-200 Mil in 1995 to rebuild Key Arena at the behest of Stern. So are you telling me that they should fork over $500 Mil (what Bennett wants) 13 years later to build a brand new arena? $150-200 Mil buys you 13 years?! Stern also forgets that his buddy Clay and his ownership group are millionaires and they stand to profit the most by building a new arena. It's the rich getting richer. Stern's pointing the finger at the Seattle-ites who'd rather spend the money on education, roads, etc. Those evil citizens!

Stern and Bennett also ignore that the Sonics have been in Seattle for 41 years. They've won the city's only major championship (Storm don't count). You can't tell me that if a team has low attendance, it's ripe for moving. So b/c ownership has put out a crappy product, the fans should still pay arm over arm to go watch them. You can't tell me the Wizards were leading the league in attendance during the 80s and 90s. Most teams rise and fall. The Sonics were bad ass in the 90s. They're having their down period.

SD, imagine the Padres, who according to Wikipedia were founded in 1969. They've been around for roughly 40 years. Now I have no idea how Petco Park came to be, nor am I aware of ownership's reputation, but try to apply the Sonics situation to the Padres. Imagine Petco park being rebuild at the behest of Bud 15 years ago and now Bud and the owners want a new place or else they'll move. What if the citizens of SD take a stand and would rather spend the money on their childrens' education and the welfare of the city. Are you just supposed to ignore the 98 and 84 and pennetts as they prepare to move to a much smaller market?

It's a really crappy situation, esp since Stern has publicly stated that the Sonics will not get another franchise. Ok, so Charlotte can get 2 franchises in 8 years and Seattle, with 41 years and one of the wealthiest demographics in the country, cannot? Btw, that move to Memphis really worked out for the Grizzlies. Way to go from another large market to a significantly smaller one.

[TBird41]

Mar 4, 2008 17:09:30 GMT -5 pkhoya03 said:

At issue is not just the Sonics. I see it as an issue greedy ownership and short-sighted commissioner. I've only been a fan of the Sonics for less than a year (once Jeff got here), but what we have here is a tag-team of David Stern and Clay Bennett saying "build us a stadium or we'll leave" threat. Since the city and the taxpayers refuse to, having already paid a ton for the Seahawks and the Mariners, Stern publicly admonishes the residents as not caring about the team. What he doesn't mention, and what no one outside of Seattle realizes, is that the tax payers already forked over $150-200 Mil in 1995 to rebuild Key Arena at the behest of Stern. So are you telling me that they should fork over $500 Mil (what Bennett wants) 13 years later to build a brand new arena? $150-200 Mil buys you 13 years?! Stern also forgets that his buddy Clay and his ownership group are millionaires and they stand to profit the most by building a new arena. It's the rich getting richer. Stern's pointing the finger at the Seattle-ites who'd rather spend the money on education, roads, etc. Those evil citizens!

Stern and Bennett also ignore that the Sonics have been in Seattle for 41 years. They've won the city's only major championship (Storm don't count). You can't tell me that if a team has low attendance, it's ripe for moving. So b/c ownership has put out a crappy product, the fans should still pay arm over arm to go watch them. You can't tell me the Wizards were leading the league in attendance during the 80s and 90s. Most teams rise and fall. The Sonics were bad ass in the 90s. They're having their down period.

SD, imagine the Padres, who according to Wikipedia were founded in 1969. They've been around for roughly 40 years. Now I have no idea how Petco Park came to be, nor am I aware of ownership's reputation, but try to apply the Sonics situation to the Padres. Imagine Petco park being rebuild at the behest of Bud 15 years ago and now Bud and the owners want a new place or else they'll move. Are you just supposed to ignore the 98 and 84 and pennetts?

It's a really crappy situation, esp since Stern has publicly stated that the Sonics will not get another franchise. Ok, so Charlotte can get 2 franchises in 8 years and Seattle, with 41 years and one of the wealthiest demographics in the country, cannot?

So how does that make the Sonics situation different from the Expos, Twins, Marlins, Saints, Browns, North Stars, Vikings, White Sox (weren't there threats of them moving to Tampa?), etc?

[pkhoya03]

Mar 4, 2008 17:13:16 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Mar 4, 2008 17:09:30 GMT -5 pkhoya03 said:

At issue is not just the Sonics. I see it as an issue greedy ownership and short-sighted commissioner. I've only been a fan of the Sonics for less than a year (once Jeff got here), but what we have here is a tag-team of David Stern and Clay Bennett saying "build us a stadium or we'll leave" threat. Since the city and the taxpayers refuse to, having already paid a ton for the Seahawks and the Mariners, Stern publicly admonishes the residents as not caring about the team. What he doesn't mention, and what no one outside of Seattle realizes, is that the tax payers already forked over $150-200 Mil in 1995 to rebuild Key Arena at the behest of Stern. So are you telling me that they should fork over $500 Mil (what Bennett wants) 13 years later to build a brand new arena? $150-200 Mil buys you 13 years?! Stern also forgets that his buddy Clay and his ownership group are millionaires and they stand to profit the most by building a new arena. It's the rich getting richer. Stern's pointing the finger at the Seattle-ites who'd rather spend the money on education, roads, etc. Those evil citizens!

Stern and Bennett also ignore that the Sonics have been in Seattle for 41 years. They've won the city's only major championship (Storm don't count). You can't tell me that if a team has low attendance, it's ripe for moving. So b/c ownership has put out a crappy product, the fans should still pay arm over arm to go watch them. You can't tell me the Wizards were leading the league in attendance during the 80s and 90s. Most teams rise and fall. The Sonics were bad ass in the 90s. They're having their down period.

SD, imagine the Padres, who according to Wikipedia were founded in 1969. They've been around for roughly 40 years. Now I have no idea how Petco Park came to be, nor am I aware of ownership's reputation, but try to apply the Sonics situation to the Padres. Imagine Petco park being rebuild at the behest of Bud 15 years ago and now Bud and the owners want a new place or else they'll move. Are you just supposed to ignore the 98 and 84 and pennetts?

It's a really crappy situation, esp since Stern has publicly stated that the Sonics will not get another franchise. Ok, so Charlotte can get 2 franchises in 8 years and Seattle, with 41 years and one of the wealthiest demographics in the country, cannot?

So how does that make the Sonics situation different from the Expos, Twins, Marlins, Saints, Browns, North Stars, Vikings, White Sox (weren't there threats of them moving to Tampa?), etc?

It doesn't make it any different. In fact, a lot of Browns, Whalers, North Stars fans write in the mailbag about that. And this isn't the last time owner greed will triumph. Sucks b/c other owners will not stand up to fight b/c they don't want any resistance in case they ever move.

[SDHoya]

Petco was built with about half public funding and half private. I was in favor public financing for Petco because it was part of a larger urban revitalization effort in downtown SD. 15 years ago, dowtown SD was one giant slum, now it is the hottest real-estate in the city, and an economic boon.

I am not taking a stand on the arena in Seattle, because I don't know its specifics. I will say that around the same time that Key Arena was renovated with tax payer moeny, Qualcomm stadium (then still Jack Murphy) was expanded with taxpayer money (at the Chargers behest), and about 3 years later, the Chargers started threatening to move if they didnt get a brand new stadium. They continue to do so, and seeing as the city of SD is currently bankrupt, they aren't getting anything anytime soon. Prior to Petco's building, the Padres had consistently threatened to move. Point is, nothing new is going on in Seattle.

Also, not sure what pennants/championships have to do with the issue. Just about every team has some trophy or another. If a team is losing money, they will either go bankrupt or else move. Thats just life in capitalism. However, there may be some funny business in Seattle which makes this different, but again, I don't know enough about the situation. However, the pure emotional appeal does hold water with me.

[kchoya]

One difference - the new ownership group bought the team with the sole purpose of moving the team to Oklahoma City, which I'm sure is nice, but is Seattle in terms of long-term professional sports support, TV market, population, business market, etc. All of the BS about needing a new $500 million arena is crap considering OKC is offering an $89M and Seattle just poured $200M (I think) into Key Arena 10 years heck. And since when does a new arena cost $500M. Kansas City just opened the incredible Sprint Center last fall for less than $300M.

The worst part David Stern's part in all of this. It appears to be more than just acquiesence and more like active faciltiation in the move out of Seattle. Just look at his quote about how it's inevitable that the Sonics are moving? Really? The commish has no power to stop a move?

And spare me this nonsense about "life in capitalism." I'm not econ major, but I don't think you can compare owning one of 32 (?) NBA franchises worth hundreds of millions to owning the coffee shack down the street that goes out of business due to losing money to Starbucks.

[seattlehoya11]

Yeah sorry if I made it sound like this problem was unique to Seattle... I know it clearly isn't.

The biggest problem with this situation in particular is the league's complacency in all the action. They approved the sale of a team to an owner they knew wanted to move the team and are now in full support of the owner despite is pretty ridiculous demands. It's a shame, though it was inevitable, that money has come to rule professional sports to the extent that it has.

Oh well, at least the Seattle Storm just signed Sheryl Swoops

[washingtonhoya]

I should probably preface this by saying the last time I was a passionate Sonics fan was around the Finals against the Bulls: The last Sonic I can remember saying was my favorite NBA player was either Gary Payton or Detlef Schrempf, and that my interest in the Sonics dwindled as Vin Baker got fat, the team got terrible, Shawn Kemp got more and more illegitimate children, and I stopped being able to watch on a regular basis the style of basketball the NBA represents. Oh and I've only gone to two Sonics games in the past ten years, one at KeyArena and one at the Verizon Center. So clearly I'm not helping the Save our Sonics cause.

BUT- This should be a matter of concern for any sports fan whose favorite team isn't institutionalized by the media or its own league as the everlasting paragon of all that is right with a sport. By this I'm suggesting the fans of franchises that aren't the Red Sox or Yankees, Patriots or Cowboys, Lakers, Celtics, or Bulls. The teams in lesser media markets (especially if they have the audacity to base themselves west of the Mississippi and not in LA/SF)

The Sonics have a history, a championship to their credit, and a loyal fanbase that is going to watch their team leave town at the behest of a new owner with the full compliance, bordering on active cooperation of the league and its owner. At no point should anyone in Seattle have believed Clay Bennett's PR people when they said he was interested in finding a solution that would keep the Sonics in Seattle. This was always going to be about holding the fanbase ransom for a new publicly-funded arena that a billionaire could profit from, and if he didn't get his way and his tax package, he was going to take his new toy and go home. The history of stadium deals in Seattle has already been rehashed, so I won't go into it here, especially since I don't live within the city limits and was therefore never really subject to the tax increases (score one for driving 90 minutes each way to see Mariners games).

The real problem here is that the Save Our Sonics movement could have half a million people show up and register their disgust with the move and it wouldn't matter. This is another case of owners looking at the fanbase of their franchises and saying SCREW YOU. As long as owners continue to make a profit they'll operate their franchises any way they damn well please. Not to get too "God Save the Fan" here but owners understand they operate within a regional monopoly where their customers have no other option than to continue shelling out money for the privilege of watching a team that they have a strong emotional relationship with, and a team that in part defines the identity of the community that hosts the team. All the rallies and chanting at the remaining Seattle Sonics games won't do a thing to keeping the franchise in Seattle. Clay Bennett and David Stern both know it, and don't care. Eventually Sonics fans will realize it, and I'm sure some already have.

Other fans should care because they should know that their loyalty to a team, at the en dof the day, does not matter. Suffer a couple down seasons--hell, even winning teams have to deal with possible relocation--or commit the unforgivable sin of being not as profitable as owners would like, and you'll find yourself going through the same thing. Owners have all the power, and in this case the NBA is actively encouraging Bennett and Co. to hold out for a $500M arena or skip town. Extortion of fanbases is par for the course in modern sports, and anyone who thinks that it could absolutely never happen to their own team is delusional.

(These thoughts are fairly unorganized since I'm at work. If I have time/actually care enough I'll probably try revisiting some of the points mentioned here, and discussing the perceptual disconnect between Seattle and Oklahoma City, or as most Seattleites would likely refer to it, "Flyover Country".)

[hoyarooter]

I can commiserate with the Sonic fans, having been through this same experience with the Rams. It stinks, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Seattle has a rich history and deserves a team, so I hope that Seattlites don't find themselves waiting as long for the return of the NBA as Angelenos have for the return of the NFL.

[AustinHoya03]

Just wondering: the Dallas Cowboys haven't played in Dallas for years. Is there no equivalent of Arlington, TX in the Seattle area -- a parking lot town with stupid voters just itching to use public funds to construct a stadium? Would it matter?

[SDHoya]

Capitalism applies to huge businesses and small businesses. If a huge business is unable to make money, it downsizes, sells its stock or goes out of business. Similarly, there are very few owners who are interested in losing money on a regular basis, so if a team is losing money, the ownership group will try to change tactics, sell or close shop. Again, I don't know if this is the case in Seattle or not, but capitalism applies as much to sports as it does to Starbucks.

Rooter, didn't the Rams play in Anaheim? I mean, I know that the Angels now call them selves "LA Angels of Anaheim" and the Rams did go by "LA", but were Angelinos really that torn up about the Rams leaving? I certainly don't consider Anaheim to be LA. I would think that the bigger deal was the defection of the Raiders, although I must say, the Colosseum is an awful place to watch a game.

Back to the analogy I was making before, like Austin said with the Cowboys, the Chargers are now looking to move to one of SD's suburbs, in order to stay in the area. Has any similar proposal been made in the Seattle area? I would think that if a suburb could make a decent offer, that it would at least slow down the Sonics almost inevitable more to OKC.

[TBird41]

Try a lawsuit. It was the only thing that saved the Twins, with two championships and a loyal fan base from being contracted. Of course, now they're getting a publicly financed stadium, so who knows what can be done if that doesn't work and/or the lease runs out (I assume their lease is the only reason the Sonics are still in Seattle, right?)

[theexorcist]

Mar 4, 2008 23:34:49 GMT -5 SDHoya said:

Capitalism applies to huge businesses and small businesses. If a huge business is unable to make money, it downsizes, sells its stock or goes out of business. Similarly, there are very few owners who are interested in losing money on a regular basis, so if a team is losing money, the ownership group will try to change tactics, sell or close shop. Again, I don't know if this is the case in Seattle or not, but capitalism applies as much to sports as it does to Starbucks.

Rooter, didn't the Rams play in Anaheim? I mean, I know that the Angels now call them selves "LA Angels of Anaheim" and the Rams did go by "LA", but were Angelinos really that torn up about the Rams leaving? I certainly don't consider Anaheim to be LA. I would think that the bigger deal was the defection of the Raiders, although I must say, the Colosseum is an awful place to watch a game.

Back to the analogy I was making before, like Austin said with the Cowboys, the Chargers are now looking to move to one of SD's suburbs, in order to stay in the area. Has any similar proposal been made in the Seattle area? I would think that if a suburb could make a decent offer, that it would at least slow down the Sonics almost inevitable more to OKC.

Capitalism is not predicated on requiring huge, publicly-funded places to do your work. The NBA has also sold itself as being integral to its communities in a way that even Boeing is not with Seattle. The name of the team is not the Yomiuri Supersonics, and its pregame videos heartily integrate famous Seattle landmarks in a way that other businesses do not.

As I understand it, this has been a done deal for a while and any attempt to redo the stadium location would be too little, too late.

The NBA is a business, and it has the right to place teams where they want. However, if they want publicly funded stadiums and want to craft any brand loyalty, they're doing something remarkably stupid. Furthermore:

1. Key Arena has 3,000 fewer seats than the Booth, which is one of the largest NBA arenas. The seat differential isn't significant.

2. It was renovated a decade ago, and was originally built in the early 70s. This is not some arena from 1910.

3. Seattle is a gateway to Asia, which is a major focus of the NBA international marketing expansion. It also involves western Canada (BC and Alberta), who think that Toronto is too high and mighty and who would be reluctant to embrace the Raptors.

Oklahoma City is in a smaller metropolitan area. It's not well-served by teams because there's nothing there.

4. The arena cost that was proposed (which I don't have in front of me) was obscene. Furthermore, there's no hockey tenant to take other dates, and the University of Washington plays on campus. It's an awful deal for the city.

[SDHoya]

excorsist, I never said that capitalism required publicly funded stadiums. I merely said that the laws of capitalism applied to sports franchises as well as coffee shops. I am still under the assumption until someone corrects me, that the Sonics are losing money in Key Arena. Therefore, like any entity in capitalism, they must change tactics. The tactic apparently chosen by the ownership group is to move to OKC. I am making no comment as to whether this is a "smart" move or not (for Seattle, the Sonics or the NBA), all I am saying is that I do not think that it is particularly unique or scandalous.

As far as Seattle being a gateway to Asia, I don't see how it is any more a gateway then LA or San Francisco are. As far as it being a gateway to Western Canada, didn't the NBA try that market once, i.e. the Grizzlies, and fail miserably? Also, what is to say that OKC doesn't become like Sacramento, a small town with rabid loyalty to their team?

[Filo]

I was surprised to see how OK. City compares to Seattle and Sacramento in terms of population; it has a much larger population than I realized. It is not that much smaller than Seattle:

www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html

Still don't think it is a smart move, though.

[AustinHoya03]

Mar 5, 2008 10:39:52 GMT -5 Filo said:

I was surprised to see how OK. City compares to Seattle and Sacramento in terms of population; it has a much larger population than I realized. It is not that much smaller than Seattle:

www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html

Still don't think it is a smart move, though.

If you compare metropolitan areas, on the other hand, Seattle-Tacoma-Bellvue is much larger than the OKC metro area.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas