In his “Morning Tip” article yesterday, NBA.com insider David Aldridge was asked a question about expansion, specifically to Seattle. Here is the question, posed by M. Scott Logell:
I am a Seattle resident and am one of the many fans desperate for the Sonics to return. Your article was well done covering all the factions, power players and issues that can make or break the creation of an NBA team. The ending of your article especially rang true, and was loud and clear. That is... nobody in Seattle knows what the NBA supports, what they prefer, etc., etc.
The question I hope you can answer is whether the previous iterations of NBA expansions and relocation of teams was this "difficult" and "vague" and non-committal (borderline unsupportive sometimes). Saying things like it’s not currently being discussed and considered (i.e. on the agenda) by the NBA owners, and even if they did "support" it it’s not going to happen anytime in the next 5 to 10 years, is almost like saying just forget about it because it's not worth the effort. With that kind of extreme aloofness, we don't see why local politicians and financial backers will continue to pursue it. It seems the NBA could care less about the things all the people and players in Seattle are trying desperately to do. Was the NBA this disconnected and non-supportive prior to previous expansions and team relocations?
It certainly does seem that since - and perhaps because of - the Sonics’ relocation to Oklahoma City, the league appears to be fighting much harder to keep teams in their respective cities. This also could, and appears to be, largely in part to new commissioner Adam Silver, although his predecessor David Stern was the one who reportedly fought tooth and nail behind the scenes to keep the Kings in Sacramento. Since then, we’ve seen the Milwaukee Bucks be the subject of relocation rumors as well, only to finalize a new arena there. The Atlanta Hawks, Los Angeles Clippers, and Houston Rockets have all switched hands, but they are all safe and sound in their current markets. So if relocation is out of sight, and expansion is a distant possibility at best, what does Aldridge think? Here is his response to Mr. Logell:
I can’t speak to the ‘70s or early ‘80s, Scott -- I wasn’t covering the league yet when the Kings moved from Kansas City to Sacramento in 1985. But I’d say things are different now, just because the money of franchise valuations is so, so huge. Expansion will thus be incredibly difficult to pull off for any city. Existing owners are just not all that excited about splitting up this enormous financial pie; they’re going to have to be convinced (which, ultimately, will take a nine-figure check made out to them).
It’s not directed at Seattle per se; they have the same opinion about Vegas or Louisville or any town that’s looking to get in on the action. Having said that, I do believe that owners like Seattle and would support a relocation of an existing team there if that situation ever comes to pass in the coming years. Expansion will just take a little longer.
The line where Aldridge says he believes owners would support a relocation to Seattle seems to fly in the face of what we’ve seen. Of course, the Kings split was reportedly much closer than the final tally and, as I said above, there is a new sheriff in town in Adam Silver. Of course, relocating a team is a tricky thing and is dependent on lease terms and other factors. We also don’t want to be looked at as hypocrites, doing to another city what was done to us. The league seems to want to do everything they can to keep teams in place, with relocation being a last resort. Personally, I don’t see how they can justify a move of any team in the near future. Admittedly, though, David Aldridge knows a lot more than I do...
Comments
This is not true.
We know exactly what the league would do in a relocation situation.
By jasonnn. on 09.06.17 11:10am
Please enlighten
What would the league do in a relocation situation?
By Paul Rogers on 09.06.17 11:59am
We have two modern examples to draw from
We know what the league did in 2008 when it helped Bennett take the Sonics from Seattle.
We know what the league did in 2013 when it prevented Hansen from taking the Kings from Sacramento.
Which one of those will the league do when the next situation comes up. I don’t believe we do know.
By Paul Rogers on 09.06.17 12:25pm
In both cases the league screwed Seattle.
Maybe that’s what he means.
By itsanospreybich on 09.06.17 2:02pm
An accurate statement to be sure
By Paul Rogers on 09.06.17 2:20pm
you know what they would do.
Bend over backwards to help whatever team stay in its market. The tone of your post makes it sound like I’m way off base here. As if we all didn’t live through the Sacramento situation. Articles like this are pointless because of course people can say they "support" relocation when there is literally no team even talking about the possibility of relocating. I would strongly support you giving me $100 but we both know thats not going to happen.
By jasonnn. on 09.06.17 10:52pm
Given the past 2 billlion dollar team sales
I don’t see how there won’t be a relocation at some point when the price gets the point to where the market can’t support that kind of sales price.
By gstommylee on 09.07.17 10:58am
Aldridge is referencing his own piece from a few weeks ago
He spoke with some owners who seemed open to relocation:
https://www.sonicsrising.com/2017/7/31/16073526/david-aldridge-nba-expansion-bonderman-seattle
I wouldn’t be surprised if more owners felt like the second owner there with these markets (supposedly 3 markets in particular) that still can’t measure up after all the huge money brought into the league over the last few years. If they still can’t compete there, time to move to markets where they can.
By Matt Tucker on 09.06.17 12:29pm
The kicker in that article...
"There are no teams with lease agreements coming to expire in the near future. Sacramento, Milwaukee, and Atlanta are all getting new or renovated arenas"
I have zero doubt that the NBA will approve relocation in the right scenario, i just don’t foresee that happening within the next several years. No teams have a lease where they could move even if that’s what the NBA wants. On a separate note, the NBA’s stance to allow every floundering NBA city the opportunity to build a new arena could backfire with no good result. Look at the Miami Marlins in baseball. The team just sold but is hemorrhaging money. New stadium does not automatically equal success. Only time will tell if those markets with new or renovated arena’s was a right move.
By ksmith1984 on 09.06.17 12:45pm
I'm not sure that I see leases as ironclad much anymore
Most will have some kind of buyout option or penalty. Even the ones that say they can’t do it until year-whatever of the lease can probably be negotiated away. In the end, it could be a better financial decision to take the hit on getting out of the lease and moving to a more beneficial market than staying in place.
What’s really going to be the factor is how a team is involved in any sort of public arena money/financing. What aspects related to that did they set up in agreements for that money? What recourses do the local government have that could affect relocation in any fashion?
By Matt Tucker on 09.06.17 2:12pm
Those lease buyouts aren't what they used to be
An $80 million buyout seemed gigantic when franchises were worth $250 million, which wasn’t that long ago. Now that all franchises are worth over a billion, an $80 million buyout is a drop in the bucket.
But again, it’s all about what the league chooses to do when the time comes.
By Paul Rogers on 09.06.17 2:24pm
The three teams with a negative operating income, according to Forbes
Cleveland
The Clippers…
AND THE THUNDER.
By Taylor Bartle on 09.06.17 1:21pm
Dunt dunt DUUHHH
My head is freaking spinning with the irony. My heart swells with the poetic justice. My stomach just feels sick.
If LeBron is lured to the Clips, how vulnerable is Cleveland? If he isn’t, and the arena doesn’t pan out, how does that change the equation for the Clippers?
By cortone on 09.06.17 3:46pm
Personally i would love to take the Thunder Back
That a great slice of revenge against Bennet and Stern. And would anyone really look at us in a bad light for taking our team back and giving OKC big finger in the process?
By Malve on 09.08.17 5:37pm
Oh man, so would I. It couldn't get any better than that.
At least until KD re-signed with us to finish his career. Sigh.
By cortone on 09.08.17 9:26pm
Pretty odd... Not the three teams I would have thought.
The Caveliers have been to the finals the last two seasons, even winning them in 2016. My initial thought is they are likely paying a hefty luxury tax due to a payroll well over the salary cap, but you would think their success would more than offeset that.
The clippers have also seen recent success and all while the Lakers haven’t had a winning season in at least 3 years. Not saying that the Clips would steal the market but you’d think there would have been some level of shift with younger fans there. My feeling is that being the 3rd tenant behind the Lakers and Kings to the table at Staple Center (4th to the revenue pie with AEG being the operator) makes it difficult to turn a profit with their high payroll.
The Thunder on this list is really the most curious (and satisfying) to me. They boast a relatively modest payroll, especially without KD, and have been quite successful since the relocation (I don’t think they’ve missed the playoffs once). I’m sure there’s plenty of corporate oil money there and they’re the only game in town besides college sports. Strange (and satisfying).
Interesting too that the extra playoff games for all three franchises wouldn’t push them over the loss/profit threshold.
By itsanospreybich on 09.06.17 4:44pm
Cleveland's payroll is bonkers
They’re paying out $137M in salaries. That’s more than $18M over the luxury tax, which gives them a luxury bill of $59M. Not to mention they’re still paying David Blatt and Mike Brown to not coach.
By Taylor Bartle on 09.06.17 4:54pm
yeah...
that’s the classic definition of "losing money on purpose" as Adam Silver has put it.
Cleveland’s also getting a large renovation of Quicken Loans arena. so, nothing to see here….
By ksmith1984 on 09.06.17 6:51pm
Cleveland cancelled their arena renovation plans
https://www.sbnation.com/2017/8/29/16221608/cavaliers-quicken-loans-arena-cancelled-renovations
By Matt Tucker on 09.07.17 3:53am
interesting...
I must have missed that last week.
By ksmith1984 on 09.07.17 7:07am
They're back on
http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/cleveland/cleveland-cavaliers-announce-recommitment-to-quicken-loans-arena-transformation-project/471639373
By Taylor Bartle on 09.07.17 8:09am
The clippers are the one team the league could justify relocating.
Whether or not Ballmer can justify it is another question.
By itsanospreybich on 09.06.17 11:37am
Expand to 32 teams.
Resurrect the Seattle Sonics and the Buffalo Braves as the 31st and 32nd NBA teams. Move the Clippers back to San Diego. Problem solved. Everyone is happy.
By Gigatron9003BucTroll on 09.06.17 12:29pm
I'd need evidence that Steve Ballmer would be happy if that happened.
His happiness is way more important than yours or mine in that situation.
It also doesn’t solve the problems with the three rumored teams that are not solvent as discussed above.
I’m probably missing the obvious sarcasm, right?
By cortone on 09.06.17 12:40pm
Everyone supports "Relocation to Seattle" ...in the abstract.
But pick an actual city – and say move them – and suddenly the answer is absolutely not.
We’re everyone’s favorite Bridesmaid.
By Bizzquik on 09.06.17 1:13pm