PDA

View Full Version : Is it time for Seattle to move on?



PacersFan1991
03-07-2011, 01:13 AM
Living here in OKC, I also follow the Thunder, watch most of their games and keep up with the news. And a lot of Sonics fans bash the team and NBA in general. I understood them being upset when it first happened. But it's been 3 years now. You can still be upset, but move on from bashing IMO. I think though if you loved Basketball, you could still like the NBA and if you don't want to cheer for the Thunder, find another team.

Merz
03-07-2011, 01:18 AM
Well, people still bash the Colts to this day for leaving Baltimore and that was 25 years ago and not as shady as a move (some will say it was but they would be ignoring what actually went down).

d_c
03-07-2011, 01:47 AM
The circumstances under which the Sonics moved out were obviously more than just shady. It was a setup from the word Go. That being said, the reason the Sonics moved was because the citizens in the area weren't willing to pay the cost of keeping them. If they were willing to pay to begin with, Bennett would never have been in the picture to buy them. It wouldn't have come to that.

It's much more difficult and expensive to get an arena deal done in a place like Seattle than OKC, so that was really the factor. I suppose it would hurt less if they were able to get a new team. As mentioned, Baltimore fans got a new team that won a Superbowl, but most of the fans there are still upset to this day.

As a Warrior fan, I wouldn't mind seeing my team leave town if someone else gave us a new team. Getting pretty fed up with what we have right now.

PacersFan1991
03-07-2011, 01:52 AM
Seattle I think will get a team again in the future, IF they can get a new arena.

Isaac
03-07-2011, 01:53 AM
The circumstances under which the Sonics moved out were obviously more than just shady. It was a setup from the word Go. That being said, the reason the Sonics moved was because the citizens in the area weren't willing to pay the cost of keeping them. If they were willing to pay to begin with, Bennett would never have been in the picture to buy them. It wouldn't have come to that.

It's much more difficult and expensive to get an arena deal done in a place like Seattle than OKC, so that was really the factor. I suppose it would hurt less if they were able to get a new team. As mentioned, Baltimore fans got a new team that won a Superbowl, but most of the fans there are still upset to this day.

As a Warrior fan, I wouldn't mind seeing my team leave town if someone else gave us a new team. Getting pretty fed up with what we have right now.

Tax dollars should never have to go towards new stadiums.

ilive4sports
03-07-2011, 01:59 AM
Tax dollars should never have to go towards new stadiums.

If the city gets revenue it should

d_c
03-07-2011, 02:23 AM
Tax dollars should never have to go towards new stadiums.

Whether or not they should isn't the issue. The issue is if one city's citizens aren't willing to pay the cost, there might be another city's citizens who ARE willing.

And that's what happened with the Sonics, with the difference in cost between building an arena in Seattle vs. OKC also being a big factor.

Bball
03-07-2011, 02:24 AM
Seattle I think will get a team again in the future, IF they can get a new arena.

Only if they want another city's team... The NBA should not even consider expanding.

Trader Joe
03-07-2011, 08:59 AM
Sorry, but Seattle got robbed...and OKC might have great numbers now, but let's be honest that isn't a basketball state or even a pro sports state. The Sooners are number 1 and the Cowboys are number 2. The moment the Thunder start to falter that franchise will be dead in the water in a terrible market for pro sports.

idioteque
03-07-2011, 09:22 AM
If the city gets revenue it should

What? A city technically gets revenue from any business that pays taxes.

Kegboy
03-07-2011, 10:32 AM
Well, people still bash the Colts to this day for leaving Baltimore and that was 25 years ago and not as shady as a move (some will say it was but they would be ignoring what actually went down).

Shoot, they bash us even after they stole a team of their own and turned right around and won a Super Bowl with it. At least we beat the snot out of them every chance we get.

IOW, no, you're never going to hear the end of it. All I would say is the second that team got bought by Bennett, everyone with half a brain knew they were moving. It's ludicrous for anyone to have believed otherwise.

TinManJoshua
03-07-2011, 11:51 AM
Art Modell is still a villain in Cleveland. Even though the Brown's came back, I think he still deserves to be vilified.

Roaming Gnome
03-07-2011, 12:02 PM
Sorry, but Seattle got robbed...and OKC might have great numbers now, but let's be honest that isn't a basketball state or even a pro sports state. The Sooners are number 1 and the Cowboys are number 2. The moment the Thunder start to falter that franchise will be dead in the water in a terrible market for pro sports.

Hey, that's what they said about Portland, Salt Lake & Sacramento! I know Sacramento is now in trouble, but they moved there over 20 years ago. So, is your prediction slated for 20 years from now?

I think your prediction is slated in a whole lot of ignorance! OKC and Tulsa are 2 of the fastest growing cities that are tied to a natural resource that we're going to be hearing a lot about in the next 20 years. I just returned from both places and let me tell you... They are putting up office towers in both cities, something Indy hasn't done in about 20 years.

Anyway, the POR, Salt Lake & Sac franchises are in the same mold as OKC's "Only game in town" status and they did well for a long time, or are doing well right now despite their place in the standings.

As for those that STILL want to say the move to OKC was "Shady"... I still maintain that Howard Schultz knew exactly who he was selling the Sonics to in the first place! Schultz gambled that the Sonics brand was too tied to Seattle to ever move. He rolled the dice and came up Snake Eyes!!!!

pacer4ever
03-07-2011, 12:03 PM
Art Modell is still a villain in Cleveland. Even though the Brown's came back, I think he still deserves to be vilified.

best thing he did was trade for Ernie Davis and draft Jim Brown. That took balls but ya moving the browns was a horrible decsion.

Trader Joe
03-07-2011, 12:25 PM
Hey, that's what they said about Portland, Salt Lake & Sacramento! I know Sacramento is now in trouble, but they moved there over 20 years ago. So, is your prediction slated for 20 years from now?

I think your prediction is slated in a whole lot of ignorance! OKC and Tulsa are 2 of the fastest growing cities that are tied to a natural resource that we're going to be hearing a lot about in the next 20 years. I just returned from both places and let me tell you... They are putting up office towers in both cities, something Indy hasn't done in about 20 years.

Anyway, the POR, Salt Lake & Sac franchises are in the same mold as OKC's "Only game in town" status and they did well for a long time, or are doing well right now despite their place in the standings.

As for those that STILL want to say the move to OKC was "Shady"... I still maintain that Howard Schultz knew exactly who he was selling the Sonics to in the first place! Schultz gambled that the Sonics brand was too tied to Seattle to ever move. He rolled the dice and came up Snake Eyes!!!!

The problem is...Portland, Salt Lake, Sacramento, had no real sporting background before those teams arrived. And I mean comparing the Blazers to the Thunder? I mean really?

The south is notoriously focused on their amateur sports. Oklahoma is married to their Sooners and then some of them cheat on the Sooners with the OSU Cowboys. We'll see if the Thunder survive it will be only because Durant brings them a couple championships, but if Durant ever leaves without winning anything there? Watch out. That market will go into the toilet FOR PRO SPORTS.

Putting up the offices is great and I have no doubt those areas will be booming, but that doesn't mean there will be a bunch of pro sports fans there. They love them now, but 10 years from now if Durant doesn't win any championships and leaves and they're winning 20 games a year? I don't think so. People will always be Sooners or Cowboys first.

Also, while OKC is growing quickly, your apparent slight towards Indy by saying we haven't put up any major buildings in 20 years and therefore we aren't growing is the only thing that is actually made in ignorance. Indianapolis and Oklahoma City are two of the fastest growing cities in America according to Forbes in 2010 http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/11/cities-innovation-texas-great-plains-indianapolis-opinions-columnists-joel-kotkin.html.

Omaha is on the list too, and if you moved the Heat there right now, I'm sure they'd draw well, but does that mean it's a good long term place for a pro sports team? I'd say no.

Peck
03-07-2011, 12:32 PM
If you were a fan of a team that moved away from you, no matter the reason, I think it is within your rights to never let it go.

Roaming Gnome
03-07-2011, 01:20 PM
The problem is...Portland, Salt Lake, Sacramento, had no real sporting background before those teams arrived. And I mean comparing the Blazers to the Thunder? I mean really?

The south is notoriously focused on their amateur sports. Oklahoma is married to their Sooners and then some of them cheat on the Sooners with the OSU Cowboys. We'll see if the Thunder survive it will be only because Durant brings them a couple championships, but if Durant ever leaves without winning anything there? Watch out. That market will go into the toilet FOR PRO SPORTS.

I guess putting pro sports in Gator Country in central Florida is an Epic Fail, by your calculations. Hell, instead of building a new arena in Orlando, maybe they should have folded the franchise!


Putting up the offices is great and I have no doubt those areas will be booming, but that doesn't mean there will be a bunch of pro sports fans there. They love them now, but 10 years from now if Durant doesn't win any championships and leaves and they're winning 20 games a year? I don't think so. People will always be Sooners or Cowboys first.

I don't dispute that OU & OSU will always be #1 and #2. I actually had that conversation with a couple fellas after the Thunder/Pacers game Wednesday at the bar. The local gentlemen that I spoke with said that there was a spot to fill in the area with so many people moving into OKC and Tulsa. He said that the Thunder will never beat out OU Football. I told the guy that IU basketball & Notre Dame football will ALWAYS trump anything that happens in Indianapolis, but there is room for what happens in Indy.


Also, while OKC is growing quickly, your apparent slight towards Indy by saying we haven't put up any major buildings in 20 years and therefore we aren't growing is the only thing that is actually made in ignorance. Indianapolis and Oklahoma City are two of the fastest growing cities in America according to Forbes in 2010

http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/11/cities-innovation-texas-great-plains-indianapolis-opinions-columnists-joel-kotkin.html.

Omaha is on the list too, and if you moved the Heat there right now, I'm sure they'd draw well, but does that mean it's a good long term place for a pro sports team? I'd say no.

Considering that I'm suffering from Central Indiana's slow down in growth... I personally challenge what Forbes is saying with the number of out of work trades folk waiting on Indy to get growing again! How many cranes do you see in downtown Indy right now? Exactly!!! Now, compare that with the number of tradesman that I seen WORKING in OKC.... I'd say relying on what Forbes is saying is true ignorance of the situation! By the way, building hotels isn't the same as office tower space!

Kegboy
03-07-2011, 01:29 PM
Hey, that's what they said about Portland, Salt Lake & Sacramento! I know Sacramento is now in trouble, but they moved there over 20 years ago. So, is your prediction slated for 20 years from now?

I think your prediction is slated in a whole lot of ignorance! OKC and Tulsa are 2 of the fastest growing cities that are tied to a natural resource that we're going to be hearing a lot about in the next 20 years. I just returned from both places and let me tell you... They are putting up office towers in both cities, something Indy hasn't done in about 20 years.

Anyway, the POR, Salt Lake & Sac franchises are in the same mold as OKC's "Only game in town" status and they did well for a long time, or are doing well right now despite their place in the standings.

As for those that STILL want to say the move to OKC was "Shady"... I still maintain that Howard Schultz knew exactly who he was selling the Sonics to in the first place! Schultz gambled that the Sonics brand was too tied to Seattle to ever move. He rolled the dice and came up Snake Eyes!!!!

Wow, wish I could get 4 billion thanks. (see attachment.)

[edit] Plus, who wants office buildings when you can have hotels straight out of 2001.

http://media.trb.com/media/alternatethumbnails/story/2010-09/138267960-27105038.jpg

Seriously, I hear the timpanis every time I see that monstrosity.

Sollozzo
03-07-2011, 01:50 PM
The problem is...Portland, Salt Lake, Sacramento, had no real sporting background before those teams arrived. And I mean comparing the Blazers to the Thunder? I mean really?

The south is notoriously focused on their amateur sports. Oklahoma is married to their Sooners and then some of them cheat on the Sooners with the OSU Cowboys. We'll see if the Thunder survive it will be only because Durant brings them a couple championships, but if Durant ever leaves without winning anything there? Watch out. That market will go into the toilet FOR PRO SPORTS.

Putting up the offices is great and I have no doubt those areas will be booming, but that doesn't mean there will be a bunch of pro sports fans there. They love them now, but 10 years from now if Durant doesn't win any championships and leaves and they're winning 20 games a year? I don't think so. People will always be Sooners or Cowboys first.

Also, while OKC is growing quickly, your apparent slight towards Indy by saying we haven't put up any major buildings in 20 years and therefore we aren't growing is the only thing that is actually made in ignorance. Indianapolis and Oklahoma City are two of the fastest growing cities in America according to Forbes in 2010 http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/11/cities-innovation-texas-great-plains-indianapolis-opinions-columnists-joel-kotkin.html.

Omaha is on the list too, and if you moved the Heat there right now, I'm sure they'd draw well, but does that mean it's a good long term place for a pro sports team? I'd say no.



And most people in Indiana are historically IU and Purdue first. But that doesn't change the fact that both the Colts and Pacers have been plenty popular at times on their own merits. You saying the Thunder won't be popular when Durant/Westbrook are done is just like someone saying the Colts will be toast when Manning leaves. We just won't know the answers to those things until the time comes. Your argument that Oklahoma is a Sonner/Cowboy place can easily be turned into an argument that the place is ready to step to the next level and support pro sports. So far OKC has shown that it can indeed support a pro sports team.

Most growth in downtown Indy is because taxpayers are fleeced. The stadiums, the Mariott hotel: The only reason that stuff is there is because we live in a community that burns taxpayers so greedy billionaire sports owners can be happy. And didn't Simons get free land downtown for the new Simon headquarters? Otherwise, they wouldn't have built downtown. It seems like every major Downtown Indy project in recent years is only there because someone got a more than generous taxpayer handout.

Where is the natural growth in downtown Indy? How many nice things have been built in recent years that weren't completely built on the backs of the taxpayer? How many big businesses have relocated there without getting a taxpayer handout/free land?

We are tearing up all the roads in the immediate downtown core so the city can look nice for the Super Bowl we might not even have, but those roads aren't even close to being the worst in the city. The City of Indianapolis has to have the worst roads of any city around. I've never seen anything like it. This place is like driving around a minefield or something. I guess I'm just bitter because I recently had a ruined wheel/tire due to a massive pothole on an Indy street, but I know I can't be the only one. I don't see much being done to fix Indy's terrible roads aside from tearing up the ones downtown that weren't even the worst to begin with. We have to make sure downtown looks perfect for people who don't care one iota about Indy and are going to be wishing they were somewhere warm.

I agree with Gnome about the skyline. We haven't built an office tower downtown since the Chase Tower was completed in 1990. Indy's skyline is tiny. Get 8-10 miles outside of the city and all you can see is two buildings: Chase and the One America tower.

Meanwhile, OKC has this monster going up:

http://www.danzfamily.com/archives/blogphotos/10/589-devon-tower-skyline.jpg

Sollozzo
03-07-2011, 01:57 PM
Wow, wish I could get 4 billion thanks. (see attachment.)

[edit] Plus, who wants office buildings when you can have hotels straight out of 2001.

http://media.trb.com/media/alternatethumbnails/story/2010-09/138267960-27105038.jpg

Seriously, I hear the timpanis every time I see that monstrosity.



The Marriott is a monster that adds to the skyline, no doubt about it. But the building is lacking in aesthetics. It's nothing but a giant piece of glass that looks like it was built as cheaply as possible. Seems like everything nowadays is built with glass to cut down on costs. It reminds me of a screen at a drive-in movie theater. When I'm downtown at night, I half expect to see a movie being screened off of the building.

Kegboy
03-07-2011, 02:08 PM
The Marriott is a monster that adds to the skyline, no doubt about it. But the building is lacking in aesthetics. It's nothing but a giant piece of glass that looks like it was built as cheaply as possible. Seems like everything nowadays is built with glass to cut down on costs. It reminds me of a screen at a drive-in movie theater. When I'm downtown at night, I half expect to see a movie being screened off of the building.

That would actually improve my feelings about it. Suck for the people in the rooms, though.

Trader Joe
03-07-2011, 02:30 PM
Considering that I'm suffering from Central Indiana's slow down in growth... I personally challenge what Forbes is saying with the number of out of work trades folk waiting on Indy to get growing again! How many cranes do you see in downtown Indy right now? Exactly!!! Now, compare that with the number of tradesman that I seen WORKING in OKC.... I'd say relying on what Forbes is saying is true ignorance of the situation! By the way, building hotels isn't the same as office tower space!

As someone who works in commercial real estate and will soon be breaking ground on a new building in keystone corridor, I can tell you that Indianapolis actually has a very strong office market right now comparatively to the rest of the country.

Also, building sky scrapers can be a fool's errand, if you don't believe me ask Donald Trump. Who is quite experienced about wiggling his way out of bankrupted office ventures.

Trader Joe
03-07-2011, 02:31 PM
I've heard nothing but glowing reports about the Marriot from those that have actually been inside of it, which is after all what really matters when you build a hotel.

Anyway, we'll just have to agree to disagree about our original points. I'm more than happy to continue this via PM, but we've gone a bit off the tracks as far as the actual thread is concerned.

Brad8888
03-07-2011, 02:54 PM
:coach: Never surrender! Never give up!

:geezer: Remember the Alamo! Remember the Maine! Remember Pearl Harbor!

:dance: :happydanc Give my regards to Broadway! Remember me to Herald Square!


:D

Day-V
03-07-2011, 03:12 PM
My thinking is, they keep bashing, they'll eventually get another team. Shows they care. Hell, if the Pacers are moved/contracted, I'll never let it down. I grew up with the Pacers. Them, not the Colts, were my team. I imagine there's a kid my age in Seattle, rocking a Hersey Hawkins jersey, who has fond memories of Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton, and Detlef Schrempf similar to my memories of Reggie Miller, Dale Davis, and Rik Smits. And I bet it still hurts to think that he doesn't have his Sonics anymore.

BringJackBack
03-07-2011, 03:20 PM
To take a page out of Vogel directed to the Sonics fans, "WE NEVER GIVE UP! WE NEVER SURRENDER! WE KEEP ATTACKING!"

Lord Helmet
03-07-2011, 05:36 PM
I recently watched Sonicsgate and yeah they were basically robbed. They have a hell of a fanbase there, a hell of a fanbase. They are still making noise about this and IMO, they should.

It hurts that their city basically let them down in the end and let it happen. I've started to refer to the Thunder as the Sonics lately and Sonicsgate is the reason why. :laugh:

Also, another thing was that franchise had 41 years of history in that area, which that makes suck that much more, it isn't like they were the Vancouver Grizzlies or something. That franchise is still the only one to bring a championship to that city, IIRC.

Sollozzo
03-07-2011, 06:30 PM
It does have to be especially devastating for former Sonics fans to see how great Durant, Westbrook and the Thunder are at a young age. If the Thunder were awful then this would be a tad easier as Seattle will probably be the first city to get a team (hey if they gave Charlotte one then they will probably give Seattle one eventually). But it's going to blow for them for the next 15 or so years if the Thunder stay together as they will probably go to the Finals once the likes of Kobe, Duncan, and Dirk get really old.

redfoster
03-07-2011, 07:00 PM
I'm with Day-V on this one. Keep fighting the good fight, Seattle.

And guy complaining about them: dude, you already won. Who cares if they bash your team? You now HAVE a team. A really good one, too.

redfoster
03-07-2011, 07:02 PM
By the way, if/when the Sonics make their comeback eventually, has there ever been an NBA team more equipped to be loved by everyone? They would instantly become every basketball fans second favourite team, right?

Roaming Gnome
03-07-2011, 07:57 PM
The moment the city of Seattle or someone with deep enough pockets to break ground for a new facility in the Seattle metro area.... They'll have a relocated team. Until then... The city of Seattle and "SonicsGate" can continue to be upset because nothing is going to change until a new building is built.

There are factual issues with the SonicsGate film I thought were stretched because there is enough documentation out there that clearly states that Howard "Starbucks" Schultz knew he was selling the team to out of town interest. There are a number of parties that sold the Sonics down the river other than just the out of town "buyers" that purchased the team.

One thing about Major League Professional Sports... You have to PAY TO PLAY.... The moment you don't, another city will be at the ready to "Show 'em the money"! King County taxpayers (bless their soul) was going to show that they had enough with funding Safeco Field & Qwest. They resoundingly made their voices heard and said NO MORE!!!!!!! I commend them for standing up! HOWEVER... Howard Schultz felt forced that he was in a no win situation with keeping the Sonics in his portfolio. Thus the eventual sale...

PacersFan1991
03-07-2011, 08:13 PM
Yeah everyone here knew, when Clay bought the team, he would bring them here. Anyone who thinks that he, an OKC business man, had any intention of keeping the team in Seattle, is clueless. Sonics fans should have started waving goodbye the second it was announced he bought the team.

Sollozzo
03-07-2011, 09:40 PM
One thing about Major League Professional Sports... You have to PAY TO PLAY.... The moment you don't, another city will be at the ready to "Show 'em the money"! King County taxpayers (bless their soul) was going to show that they had enough with funding Safeco Field & Qwest. They resoundingly made their voices heard and said NO MORE!!!!!!! I commend them for standing up! HOWEVER... Howard Schultz felt forced that he was in a no win situation with keeping the Sonics in his portfolio. Thus the eventual sale...


True. Money matters more than anything else in professional sports. If you don't pay to keep a team then there is someone else out there who gladly will.

Trophy
03-07-2011, 09:56 PM
I thought Seattle would be a good spot for the Kings to go rather than the LA Metro area.

Since the reason why their leaving is because they want a better arena and more support, they'd probably get the support in Seattle, but like Sacramento they won't build them a new arena.

I've never been to it, but Key Arena looks pretty cool though.