Portland Trail Blazers guard C.J. McCollum has spent the last four NBA Drafts speaking to NBA Commissioner Adam Silver for an interview for The Players’ Tribune. This year was no different. McCollum asked Silver about everything from his views on marijuana, to gambling in sports, to whether teams should or should not visit the White House. At one point, the subject of putting a team back in Seattle was raised, as McCollum claimed he gets asked a lot “as a guy who plays in the Pacific North West.”
Silver’s response seemed to be a bit different, a bit softer, than we’ve heard in the past. While he still tried to quell expectations, he did go so far as to say that he doesn’t believe claims of talent dilution, and even said that expansion was “inevitable” and that Seattle would be on “a short list.” Here are some of the relevant quotes, with the video below.
“I think it’s just a question of when the right time is to seriously start thinking about expansion.”
“I don’t want to put a precise timeline on it, but it’s inevitable at some point we’ll start looking at growth of franchises.”
“Seattle will, no doubt, be on a short list of cities we’ll look at.”
This is yet another message to the city of Seattle that we need an arena plan in place sooner than later and that continuing to kick the can down the road is not an option. While we may be on the short list now, that list could get even shorter if we don’t have our act together when the “inevitable” happens.
Comments
Approve the street vacation
maximize our opportunities
By cortone on 07.25.17 1:02pm
REC
By Trolltossin on 07.25.17 2:37pm
REC the REC
By Kodi on 07.25.17 3:24pm
You sir just started an inevitable looping
By CRSDR on 07.25.17 4:29pm
Nice to hear positives coming from Silver.
Usually its a negative.
By yearsago on 07.25.17 1:05pm
So let's approve the street vacation Now!!!
Get this dang Sodo Arena shovel ready so that Seattle can be taken seriously for expansion when the time comes.
By WoodLandSonic40316 on 07.25.17 5:15pm
Wonder what made him change his tone a bit
By gstommylee on 07.25.17 1:41pm
Conspiracy theorists will pounce on each specific word choice, but Silver usually delivers his most compelling interviews to CJ.
CJ isn’t the media. CJ isn’t an analyst. He’s not there to make a point or put words in Silver’s mouth.
Over the years, Silver has put himself in different environments than one might expect a commissioner of a pro sport. He does these quasi-player outreach things to show that he’s not just some stiff in a suit. That’s probably a good idea on several fronts – and it leads to interesting quotes like this.
Perhaps we’re no closer to getting a team than we were a year ago, but that isn’t the point: We still need to take care of what we can control – and that is getting our arena issue solved. We actually need a solution this time; we can’t come away empty again. …Because we never know when ‘inevitable’ will happen. These were helpful comments he made.
By Bizzquik on 07.25.17 2:08pm
Silver is more polished than 99% of politicians
He chooses is words very carefully. The use of the word "inevitable" and "only a matter of when, not if" is decidedly different than "not looking at expansion might but i’m sure we will sometime down the road…"
totally agree, we need to get our house in order. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter. Approve SoDo, move forward with negotiations and an MOU on Key. It makes the most sense and puts Sonics/NHL fans first…. (if only it was that easy…)
By BBS117 on 07.25.17 2:33pm
Street vacation vote maybe??
Trying to subconsciously maybe pushing things along politically in Seattle.
By WoodLandSonic40316 on 07.25.17 5:19pm
We're exactly one year closer to getting a team than we were a year ago
But unlike most days, today it actually feels a little closer!
By Ultrasonics on 07.25.17 9:39pm
Probably not a single thing
But certainly the improved health and valuation of the league plays a role.
I wonder if the threat of a competing league getting a foothold in one of the NBA’s best potential markets also played a role, but that’s probably reading way too much into the change in tone.
By Ultrasonics on 07.25.17 9:46pm
What could or would Hansen use as a temporary Sonics home if Key isn't available?
Let’s say the city approves the conditional vacation and goes forward with OVG renovating Key (assuming OVG would proceed knowing there’s a chance of SODO still happening) – what happens if it’s 2020-ish and Key is early-to-mid-renovation and an NBA team is granted to Seattle to play in the SODO arena that will take 2 years to build?
That’s the only flaw I see in the "approve both, market decides" plan. If there’s an alternative, adequate temp site, then I don’t care what OVG does w/Key in the meantime. If not, I’d lean towards leaving Key largely untouched so long as it may be necessary to temporarily host the SODO-bound Sonics.
By Mr. Shea on 07.25.17 4:42pm
Well if Hansen was able to get a team....
Wouldn’t that make the Key Arena MOU null in void because Hansen would have a team in hand? That is another reason Key Arena doesn’t make sense because it won’t be ready until 2021 at the earliest and that is without the delay of the Seattle process which always happens.
By WoodLandSonic40316 on 07.25.17 5:20pm
Expansion
If we are talking expansion then there should be enough time to build an Arena in SODO by the time the team needs to take the court. Usually takes a couple of years to build your front office, scout players, expansion draft, etc.
What we need more then a temporary place to play is a……….
STREET VACATION
We need to prove that we are AT LEAST shovel ready.
By Kodi on 07.25.17 5:26pm
Well yes, obviously approve the street vacation ASAP
My question goes towards whether that precludes Key Arena from being gutted? Hansen’s plan, including the street vacation, has always contemplated current Key existing and getting some band-aids and hosting the Sonics (or a starter hockey team) for a couple years.
If the city grants a street vacation, would they reserve the right to withdraw it if he doesn’t act upon it in __ years while Key’s going through the legal processes? Would OVG even go through those motions if they know Hansen’s going to get a team (and he’d get the hockey team immediately, even if the NBA doesn’t expand for a decade) and will build his arena and presumably halt the Key project?
Unless there’s an alternate temp site, the ideal-sounding approach of "approve both" might need to have a number of contingencies attached.
By Mr. Shea on 07.25.17 5:50pm
They'd likely explore the Tacoma Dome as a temporary option.
By Matt Tucker on 07.25.17 5:46pm
Gross
But I’d deal.
I had just hit post on the below in response to a Rogers post about how nothing in Silver’s statement indicated expansion within 4 years, but that got deleted and caused mine to go all wonky:
By Mr. Shea on 07.25.17 6:28pm
Yeah
I deleted it. I didn’t feel like arguing about it tonight.
In any event, I’m not opposed to approving street vacation and proceeding with OVG. I just don’t see much chance of that happening.
By Paul Rogers on 07.25.17 6:46pm
I think that's where the majority of us are.
I can’t see any harm in them doing both, but it’s not likely to happen. They seem set on one arena and a definitive solution.
By Matt Tucker on 07.26.17 11:02am
As a practical matter, what I'm suggesting would likely result in just one full-scale NBA/NHL-size arena
If the city gives Hansen the conditional street vacation but puts a cap on how long he’d have to get a NHL or NBA team and buy the street, he’d either succeed at which point OVG wouldn’t proceed with tearing up Key Arena, or he’d fail and Key Arena would possibly proceed and get an NHL team.
By Mr. Shea on 07.26.17 12:51pm
I totally get the logic behind it.
And I even agree. But it’s really going to come down to if the council believes SoDo can get teams and if they are willing to bide time to let them do it. I have a feeling after 5 years that they may not have the same patience.
By Matt Tucker on 07.26.17 1:16pm
Honestly Matt, do you really believe it's about whether Sodo can get teams?
Or is it one of the convenient talking points that helps them dodge a barrage of political influence?
I don’t find the concern about getting teams (or not) to be credible, nor do I really think that’s terribly important to the SCC as a whole. They’ll be happy to claim it as a "result", but they aren’t going to risk anything for it. The Key is the low-risk move for them politically, and they are grabbing it, despite the lack of "compelling" benefits.
An arena will get teams. They could have solved this last year if it was really about teams, citing concerns that were either ill-founded or no longer exist. They got leveraged.
By cortone on 07.26.17 1:46pm
I don't think it's about just one thing
But it is a concern of the council, yes.
By Matt Tucker on 07.26.17 4:09pm
I dont get that being a concern of the council
If its truly a concern, then there is no reason to deny a conditional street vacation. It seems like an excuse and not a very good one considering the situation.
By Seattle_Fan1980 on 07.26.17 4:57pm