Let me get this out of the way first: I think that Seattle is a better place for an NBA team than Sacramento. Seattle is bigger (a million more people in the metropolitan area, 15th-largest in the nation to 22nd, plus within TV-package and driving distance for residual Vancouver basketball fans) and has a richer basketball history (the Sonics were ingrained in Seattle's DNA in a way that the Kings have not been since moving to Sacramento in 1985; plus, Seattle grows NBA talent out of proportion to its population). The Kings in Sacramento are more like, say, the NHL Kings in LA -- present but not beloved. But I recognize that that may just be my bias talking; discount at will.
What I really want to say is that even if Seattle gets another team, a resurrected Sonics, it will just be a cherry atop a giant bowl of shit. Part of me thinks that this is all just a ruse by David Stern to extort a bit more money from Sacramento for the Kings (and all the better that his dupe is Seattle, the city that had the temerity to refuse him the last time he came demanding money). Even if it works, though, it serves the NBA's nefarious interest. A large part of the NBA's business model today is to increase the value of its franchises by demanding nine-figure stadium subsidies from local governments. The Sonics' move to Oklahoma City is Stern's stick, and the Kings' move to Seattle could be his carrot.
That's why, if you live in any city other than New York, Boston, Chicago, or Los Angeles, this should matter to you. The NBA wants a new stadium in each city every 20-25 years, and it wants you -- the taxpayer -- to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for it. If your politicians say no, the NBA will take its ball and go play somewhere else -- and the NBA knows that's not likely to happen, because the electoral effect of losing a beloved sports team is more visceral than that of the impenetrable financial calculus of stadium subsidies.
Well, unless you're perfectly fine with the local NBA franchise taking its ball and playing elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm saying is that there is a powerful political incentive not to do that -- politicians don't want to be the ones that let the Kings or the Hawks or the Vikings or the Hornets or the Bobcats or whoever get away. Not to mention that the pro-subsidy alliances (chamber of commerce; extremely wealthy NBA owners) are likely to be more politically influential than the relatively unorganized anti-subsidy people.
ReplyDeleteI don't really question the that fiscally it might be smarter (in the NBA's eyes) to move the Kings to Seattle, or that Sacramento doesn't really grow NBA talent the way other locations do.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as a native Sacramentan, whose mother worked for the franchise during it's earliest years (why yes, I have pictures of myself sitting on Joe Klein's lap), I would argue that that the Kings are more than beloved. Taken for granted? Sometimes, but I don't think having the longest sellout streak in the NBA signifies merely "present." I mean, I loved Olden Polynice, for goodness' sake.
It's not like the city wasn't warned, though. They've (various they) have been trying to get a new Arena funded for YEARS. The fact that Power Balance Arena exists in it's current state is a testament to the poor planning of the Original Arco Arena (immediately too small for it's needs, new one erected across the highway within 3 years).
Anyway, what I guess I'm trying to say is, the Maloofs (and David Stern) can suck it.
Yikes. I live in Kansas City -- one of those cities that has trouble attracting any sports teams worthy of value.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your commentary on this -- as much as I would LOVE to have an NBA team to root for........ Wait. Nevermind.... You JUST said it for me. Go, you!
:-)
This is also how the NFL is using the threat of LA as a future home for any team whose city won't pony up for a new stadium.
ReplyDeleteAs another native Sacramentan, I agree with you 100% - and who didn't love Olden Polynice? :)
ReplyDeleteLike I said, it could be just my bias talking; you may be right that they are beloved. But I would be remiss if I didn't mention that, as a Sonics fan, I loved Olden Polynice first. Remember when we traded Scottie Pippen for him? Good times.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that the NFL also seeks public subsidies for its teams, my impression is that it is more cooperative in the way it goes about it. I think the NFL thinks -- correctly, to my mind -- that franchise stability is a good thing. Of the three moves in the last 20 years, the NFL tried like hell to prevent one of them (Raiders to Oakland) and was so embarrassed by another (Browns to Baltimore) that it put another team in Cleveland within a year. The NFL didn't stop the moves, but it didn't push them. It was up to the owners to decide whether they liked or hated their stadiums. The NFL wants public money, but it doesn't use overt blackmail and threats to get it.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, in the NBA, David Stern was a principal player in all three of the recent franchise moves. The Grizzlies' move actually made sense, given their lack of support, but Stern basically moved the Hornets (unnecessarily) just to remind Charlotte who was boss; he did everything in his power to get the Sonics out of Seattle by practically condemning a building in 2006 that had just been renovated to his own specs <span>in 1994</span> (seriously, WTF, Stern?) and now he's doing the same thing by telling Sacramento that he will not let the Kings continue to play in their current arena. Basically, the difference I see between the NFL and the NBA is that the NFL actually wants teams to stay put; Stern actually wants them to move (unless they're his favored franchises), because it increases his leverage with everybody else. Maybe that's because the NFL is so profitable that it doesn't have the NBA's urgent need for public money, but that's no excuse.
I still can't get over the fact that there is an NBA franchise in Oklahoma.
ReplyDeleteBillionaires shouldn't be subsidized by cities especially douchebag billionaires like the Maloof Brothers.
ReplyDeleteI know each league hates this, but what about the Packers model? Certainly sports teams try to find ways to make their demands on cities and states more palatable by raising ticket prices, especially on luxury boxes and through personal seat licenses. (Raise them too much, and the politicans can say, you want us to pay for a stadium where my constituents cant afford to go?) But I imagine plenty of Seattle fans would have paid for equity in the Sonics. Perhaps no more than 30% of a team could be publicly traded, for instance. Or if not fans, why can't the cities get equity in sports teams bearing their name? All stadia should be financed not with bonds, but with convertable debentures. If the NFL is going to be a socialist organization, do it right.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the NBA needs to move back into Seattle or another similarly larger city. If you track the recent moves, the NBA has generally been moving into smaller markets, Oklahoma City being one of the best examples of this. So far, the league's strong-arm tactics have worked because smaller cities have been willing to pony up. Unless the league can move back into a larger city, it is going to work its way out of the national consciousness.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this may all be wishful thinking as I grew up on Slick Watts, Gus Williams and Jack Sikma and most of my young adulthood with Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp...
Oh dear. I just heard the Sacramento stadium bid is an effort to boost a 2022 bid for Reno/Lake Tahoe to get the Olympics, something I manifestly do not want.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes the pressure great here in Sacramento is that we are a one-team city. If the Kings leave, we're not Seattle, which has the Mariners, etc.,... Then we are Hartford.
ReplyDelete