<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nFYSWOZ5ocU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nFYSWOZ5ocU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
yup... score! but now that i got some sleep and thought about what i just posted, i would have to agree with you... it is pretty lame... ill go with the bombers
Good job? Good job?!?!?! I realize that the Rockets were moved, but it's never a cool thing to root for a team to be moved, never. Is OKC ready to support a looser if it comes to that? Isn't this a step backward for NBA market penetration? I don't like it.
A legal team as expensive and large as the supersonics basketball team couldn't get the new stadium built. If you can get the mayor to blackball the citizens and build it, sure, but if you can't, nothing you can do about it.
Not really. Seattle is in a division with Portland, Minnesota, Utah and Denver. It's already spread out. It's not too bad but I guess it was nice when teams could just go from Portland to Seattle or vice versa. If they were to change teams around, I think the best way would be to put Portland in the Pacific Division, and Phoenix in the Northwest. Pacific LA Lakers LA Clippers Oakland Sacramento Portland Northwest Phoenix Utah Denver Ok City Minnesota
Stern is starting to prepare the public for the move, trying to let everyone know this is Seattle's fault, not the NBA's. It sounds pretty classless, criticizing a city for trying to be wise with their money. I think a better tact would have been to say Seattle is doing what's best for the city and the Sonics are doing what's best for the franchise and it's too bad it didn't work out. By the way, does anyone know the details of this measure that arena funds earn a t-bill rate of return? If that means they want returns the city realizes from a new arena (in taxes and revenue-sharing) to be similar to a t-bill, that's a sweetheart deal. Maybe not as sweet as other deals in which the cities take losses, but better than the free market would demand. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3100691
40 years of history. A presence in the pacific north west. Abandoned because the new owner -- who bought the team with the existing lease in place, decided he wanted the city to give him a new stadium? And he knew it would be nearly impossible given (I think) the proposal had been defeated before, mucho bucko's were recently spent on Key arena (foolishly perhaps), and the city had just built mega baseball and football stadiums. The buyers knew it was highly unlikely that a new stadium would be given to them, yet they still bought the team. Their risk. Why can't the NBA stand firm on city franchises where there is fan support for the team? Let lease terms and the like determine the franchise value. Where 'show me the money -- or else' happens. Ugh. And those quotes??? Stern sounds like an eight year old pouting and whining that mama don't love him because she wouldn't buy him the GI Joe with the Kung Foo grip that he asked for. It's all the city's fault? Yeah, right. Cities have an obligation to fund stadiums at the whim of owners who buy teams (with existing leases) for mega millions.
I think Stern is also trying to goad Seattle or Washington state into doing something rather than sitting back and saying "Let 'em leave and we'll just get another team" which seems to be a common refrain among sports fans who teams threaten to leave (and I've seen it mentioned specifically among some Sonics fans). Since the NBA has recently done a replacement team thing in Charlotte, I could see wanting to nip that idea in the bud in Seattle and send the message that if they want the NBA, the Sonics is their last chance.
I moved to Seattle about six months ago and while I was up here, I turned down a job with the Sonics...there were many reasons, but the doubt surrounding the team definitely played a part. It's really interesting to me--there is a small part of the population up here who is seriously upset about the Sonics, but the majority of people don't seem to care. It's really a bit hypocritical really--many have taken the stance of "well, they make enough money as it is--why should I have to help fund a new stadium?", which is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. Certainly doesn't seem to stop them from supporting the Seahawks or Mariners, or the relatively recent building of new stadiums for both teams... I'm volunteering with Save our Sonics because the Sonics belong in Seattle. I recently emailed one of the volunteer coordinators and she is a Houston transplant who is just trying to keep the Sonics in Seattle. She admitted to me that she has gone to a LOT of Rockets games, and currently has a Yao Ming and a Moochie Norris bobblehead on her desk at work. Far be it from me to tell people what to do, but I feel like Seattle losing the Sonics is a horrible thing...it very well may be inevitable, but at least this way I know I did what I could.
it's not even final!!! David stern has to decide...and even though the hornets had an effect on basketball lovers in okc, seattle has history behind it...they love their ball tooo... who knows,the okc hornets might be a rival team for the rockets...
Another loss for Seattle tonight. They seem destined to win the Derrick Rose/OJ Mayo sweepstakes. Imagine the excitement one those guys will bring to OKC alongside Durant and Green.
