About that Sonics thread ...
by Chris Hafner on Mar 10, 2008 10:02 AM PDT
Email
PrintFirst off, hi, I'm a long-time lurker here. Many thanks for all the hours of workplace distraction. Thanks to USSM and LL, I feel that I've perfected the Blackberry maneuver - i.e. reading about baseball on my Blackberry during important meetings, with a stern, thoughtful look on my face. You know, as if I'm keeping on top of some important workplace emergency.
Anyway, I just caught up with the recent Sonics-related diary and became incredibly depressed reading it. There were lots of good points about Clay Bennett, and sports subsidization by governments, and what felt a little bit like Sonics hate. But it felt like the same old conversation, when I think some of the pertinent points of this new deal and ownership group gets around a lot of that.
I think the same thing is going on here as it going on with the legislators - the Sonics issue in past years has been radioactive, which makes it harder for this particular deal to be thought about and judged on its own merits.
Anyway, I wrote up an FAQ on the deal for family/friends, based on what information I have. I might be biased, because I'm a hard-core Sonics fan, but I thought maybe this would help. If posting this separately is the wrong thing, we can delete and I'll add to the old thread.
And again, this is my first post here, so apologies if I'm violating some etiquette. I'm also totally open to any corrections if I don't have the right info.
And if you don't like the deal I'm outlining below, I think you should call your legislator and have them shoot it down, just as I'd love to see people who agree with this to call their legislator as well. That's democracy in action!
Q: I don't care about the Sonics and am not a basketball fan. Why does this matter to me?
A: Because this proposal, unlike every other proposal in the past, is a decent proposal for taxpayers even if you take the Sonics out of it.
Seattle Center is in poor and worsening financial straits - the taxpayers already carry that responsibility. What's in front of the legislature is a plan where King County--not the whole state--would pay $75 million to infrastructure upgrades to Seattle Center. That taxpayer money would not go to Key Arena, but would instead go to Seattle Center infrastructure. That is money that would likely need to be spent anyway.
The major benefit here is that the new local ownership group would kick in $150 million of their own private money to upgrade Key Arena. This would obviously benefit Sonics fans, but it would also benefit anybody who uses Key Arena for any purpose. It would be an additional shot in the arm for Seattle Center.
Q: I don't like the idea of subsidizing a professional sports team when there are lots of other important things our state needs. Why should we do this?
A: Well, for one thing, the county money wouldn't subsidize a sports team - the county money would upgrade Seattle Center infrastructure. It would not line the pockets of a sports team owner.
Also, the source of this funding is the Safeco Field tax, which is set to paid off early. That tax is not available for use on education, transportation, or anything else. This is not robbing money from any other program. In fact, if we pass this up and the city or county later has to renovate Seattle Center, that money would have to come out of the general fund and could otherwise fund other programs such as education and transportation. Doing this now would prevent that.
Q: Didn't we pass an initiative preventing us from supporting the team?
A: We passed I-91, which says that any public money put into sports arenas would need to be a better investment for taxpayers than a normal investment. Chris Van Dyk (who wrote and lobbied for I-91, is the head of Citizens for More Important Things, and has campaigned hard against past arena plans) has reviewed this new initiative and has said he thinks it's a good deal for Seattle taxpayers. Same with Nick Licata. If those guys think this is a good deal, that should speak volumes.
Q: Why should we keep the Sonics around when they're not very good?
A: Yeah, the Sonics aren't very good at the moment. But sports is a cyclical thing, and basing whether you want to keep a team based on win-loss records is an example of very short-term thinking. The Mariners and Seahawks haven't always been great teams, but we stepped up and kept them around. Because of that, we all got to share in a historically good Mariners season (2001) and a Seahawks Superbowl appearance (2005). We will get to share in any success they have down the road. The Sonics will get good again, and the core is there for a really good team in a few years. If we let the Sonics go now, we won't just be losing the crappy team we see today; we lose any possibility of seeing a good Sonics team ever again. That's incredibly sad for anybody who enjoys basketball.
Q: Why should we help Clay Bennett? He's a billionaire and hates our region.
A: This wouldn't help Clay Bennett - the deal is not on the table for him. Actually, it's the last thing Bennett wants - he wants a clear road to move the team, and having local ownership and an arena plan in Seattle makes it much more difficult for him to leave.
Q: Okay, I do care about the Sonics. But aren't they gone anyway? What good will this do?
A: Clay Bennett has said the team isn't for sale; but this is a necessary step to get him to sell. The NBA Board of Governers has not yet voted to allow him to move. The consistent message has been that if there is a strong local ownership group with an arena solution, it would be very difficult to move the team (the Board of Governors is made up of team owners; several team owners are on the record as saying local ownership and an arena would change the outlook). We haven't had that in the past.
It's all a leverage game. By suing the Sonics to stay for the next few years, the city has already supplied the stick. Now, with a star-studded ownership group and an arena deal in place, we supply the carrot. The combination of the two is our best shot at getting the move rejected, forcing a sale, and keeping the team here.
But if we let this moment pass, we won't have anything to offer and the team will leave. This is our last, best shot.
Q: Why is the timing so important?
A: The NBA Board of Governors votes on the team relocation next month. That means we have to figure this out in this legislative session, which ends this week. Delay means the Board of Governors. So far legislature is dragging their feet - most of them seem to think the deal makes sense, but they remember how radioactive this issue was a year ago and are afraid that people won't educate themselves.
Q: I don't have much time; how can I express my opinion?
A: It's shockingly easy. Whether you're for or against this, just call the legislative hotline (1.800.562.6000) and tell them your opinion. You tell them your name, address, and opinion, and that's it - takes about two minutes. It does make a difference.
Q: What do you think?
A: I think having the Sonics around is important - just like the Mariners, Seahawks, our city parks, the Seattle Art Museum, ballet, opera, Intiman Theater, etc., it's part of what makes this region so special. I remember three years ago when the Sonics were really good - people were into it and even perfect strangers were talking about it.
Even beyond that, I'm a fan of Seattle Center and am not sure how Seattle Center would survive without a major tenant for Key Arena, and without 15,000 people showing up at Seattle Center 41 nights a year. I'm really surprised that the new deal would embrace Seattle Center - most of the others have not. That alone makes me for it.
I also think if we don't get this done now, we will lose both the Sonics and the $150 million the new owners would spend to revamp Key Arena. And it won't necessarily save us the $75 million on Seattle Center infrastructure upgrades.
I think it's a shockingly good deal. I'd do it today. But then again, I might be a little biased.
Q: I don't trust you as far as I could throw you. What else can I read?
A: That's wise.
Slade Gorton's comments here: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/buzz/archives/133889.asp
Steve Kelley (yeah, I know): http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/stevekelley/2004270266_kelley090.html
35 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The Sonics got their taxpayer handout
Furthermore, if a tax is being used for a project that is about to be paid off, the rest of that tax money should go right back to the taxpayers. Of course, this is King County we're talking about. Chances are it'll be used on a streetcar instead.
So the question is...
Yep, that's the question
Whether Seattle Center should even exist or whether the city should just sell the land and wash its hands of it is an interesting question but a separate one, I think. As long as it is a public facility, I would like it to be healthy.
by Chris Hafner on Mar 10, 2008 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, sure.
Keeping an inadequate facility is clearly the least attractive option, but you can't decide whether to upgrade without weighing it against the other crdible option.
I live in a small condo complex (10 units), and there's a fire pump to ensure sufficient water pressure for the sprinklers on the top floor (4 storey building). Now, the pump doesn't work, and fire code requires that we maintain the pump if we have one.
However, the fire code also doesn't require such a pump in a building of only 4 storeys, so the available options are either to repair and maintain the pump, or simply have the pump removed. We shouldn't just go ahead and repair the pump (because that's clearly better than just letting it sit there broken) without considering the removal option.
The same applies here, I think.
Well, then there are two logical questions:
- What is the alternative? Who would you sell the arena to, for how much money, and for what purpose? Who would buy it?
- Is that a realistic alternative? Is it something that the city would realistically do? The city hasn't shown a lot of inclination to sell off parts of Seattle Center in the past (to my knowledge), it's hard to imagine they'd sell off Key Arena.
If there's no way to keep the Sonics, or a similar primary tenant, then I could see the argument to sell it as an alternative to it slowly going downhill.
But even so, I don't see how selling Key Arena would help make Seattle Center healthier.
by Chris Hafner on Mar 10, 2008 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions
And maybe it wouldn't.
If the best option is to sell it, I would argue for letting it decline rather than restoring it, if only because that keeps the selling option available. Once the government restores it, selling it ceases to be a good idea.
Last I heard it was 150M in public funds
I'm reasonably sure
by Chris Hafner on Mar 10, 2008 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, the new plan is (arguably) not a handout ...
What I didn't like about other plans was that they left Seattle Center in even worse shape than it is now. The most compelling thing about the new one is that it actually has a plan for Seattle Center. Which is more than I can say for anything Seattle has done in the last several decades.
Furthermore, if a tax is being used for a project that is about to be paid off, the rest of that tax money should go right back to the taxpayers.
That's the best argument against it, I think. It's not automatic that the tax should be extended. The question, is it worth it? My opinion is obviously yes. But again, I'm biased.
Besides, regarding your point about the '90s taxpayer handouts, the Sonics' taxpayer handout in the '90s does not equal the Mariner or Seahawk handouts. According to the source I found (feel free to throw other evidence in the mix) there were no public funds. And if we look at the context of Qwest and Safeco, this new proposal looks freaking fantastic.
Again, I'm not an expert here and am welcome to other comments.
According to this possibly outdated info:
Safeco Field
Total cost: $517 million
Public financing: $340 million
Private financing: $75 million
Still being settled: Cost overruns of ~$100 million
Qwest Field (from here
Total cost: $360 million (plus $70 million event center)
Public cost: $300 million
Private cost: $130 million plus overruns
Key Arena renovation (according to this):
Total cost: $73 million
Public cost: None
("Best of all, the $73 million project will not cost Seattle taxpayers a dime: revenue from the new building will pay the entire renovation cost, and provide increased revenue to support other Seattle Center programs.")
New Proposal (as I understand it)
Total cost: $225 million
Public cost: $75 million
Private cost: $150 million
(I may be missing $75 in city money - I'm not clear on that. But it's worth noting that the $75 million in county money goes to infrastructure in the area and benefits all who use Seattle Center, not to the the arena itself)
Sorry
Let the flogging commence!
by Chris Hafner on Mar 10, 2008 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
I have a hard time believing
No, that's the original Key Arena renovation
And that does seem a bit odd, but that's quoted from the link. I had thought there was a public money component, but that it was very small compared to Safeco and Qwest.
by Chris Hafner on Mar 10, 2008 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
The more I think about this
Perhaps the city took on $75 million of debt for the building, with the expectation that it would be repaid by revenues? And that it is not yet completely repaid?
Nevertheless, even if you assume the city paid (and was never repaid) $75 million for the '90s renovation, and that some combination of city and county government would pay for $150 million this time around, that adds up to $225 million - much less than the $640 million in public funding that went into Qwest and Safeco. And that doesn't take into account that much of the money in the new proposal goes to Seattle Center infrastructure, not the Sonics.
But anyway, this isn't a competition for who can get the biggest handout. I don't begrudge the Mariners or Seahawks their stadiums. They're fantastic places to watch games. And if public financing is a bad deal for the Mariners and Seahawks, it should be a bad deal for the Sonics as well. The deal should make sense in its own right.
But I do think that saying the Sonics got the same public-money handout as the Seahawks and Mariners is just flat-out wrong.
by Chris Hafner on Mar 10, 2008 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
The source of the other $75 mil.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004266448_sonics07m.html
From the same article, it doesn't sound too likely that the state is going to pass any legislature before next year, which would be a shame because having passed the bill before the Board of Governors meeting is the key to keeping the Sonics in town. If the BoG approves the move, you can pretty much say goodbye to any hope of keeping the Supes in town. But if the consolation prize is Chris Paul's Hornets, I think I'll be mollified. I just hope we get to keep the team name the same.
The only thing I'll put out there...
One question
Well, it's not entirely his call
On the positive side of the ledger is the fact that they're all business people who make money based on the strength of the league, advertising, TV money, etc. All of those things are stronger in Seattle. Even if you throw away the history here, it's a better place to own a team. The Grizzlies and Hornets both recently moved to new, smallish cities, and both teams are failing there. The owners aren't stupid - they want to make money, and they're not eager to take money out of their pocket because Clay Bennett wants to do his hometown a favor.
And owners are starting to speak out about this. Larry Miller, owner of the Utah Jazz, has said that if the Sonics have an offer of local ownership and an arena plan, that changes everything. Mark Cuban has been very supportive as well.
The whole key is to give them a reason to reject a move. Without local ownership or an arena deal, there isn't a reason. We are this close to having some real leverage.
On the negative side is the fact that team owners tend to be a chummy lot, and may not want to set a negative precedent if they want to move in the future.
But, there are other ways the league can take care of Bennett if he's induced to sell. Oklahoma City really prefers the Hornets, and they have an out from New Orleans.
So it's certainly not a given. But the fact that Seattle has this lawsuit going right now provides an excellent stick; and offering to drop it if Bennett sells the team to local ownership, with an arena solution in place is an excellent carrot.
It's not a sure thing, but if we don't do this then they're definitely gone (in my opinion). And maybe it's just me, but that would be a shame.
by Chris Hafner on Mar 10, 2008 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
This is all wishful thinking
Clay Bennett has clear intentions to move the team to Oklahoma City, sooner or later.
David Stern is in agreement and fully believes that Seattle is done as an NBA market.
If the BoG believes that Seattle is a dead market, it doesn't matter if Seattle is technically a bigger market than Oklahoma City (which has shown a clear interest in the NBA): they will not elect to keep a team in a disinterested market.
Changing all this is going to take a lot more than, "Oh, a couple of fellow owners are kind of keen on the idea."
And the Hornets are not leaving New Orleans. Ditching that city in light of what happened with Katrina would be a P.R. disaster for the NBA. if the Hornets were moving to OKC, they would have done so by now.
This isn't necessarily wrong
But I don't think this is necessarily true:
David Stern is in agreement and fully believes that Seattle is done as an NBA market.
Stern believes Seattle needs an arena solution to be a viable NBA market. The plan in place would give Seattle just that.
And that's even if you treat all of his statements as his actual opinion and not as negotiating or posturing, which is a pretty dubious assumption. Just as the city is trying to use its leverage, so Stern is trying to leverage the city.
If the BoG believes that Seattle is a dead market, it doesn't matter if Seattle is technically a bigger market than Oklahoma City (which has shown a clear interest in the NBA): they will not elect to keep a team in a disinterested market.
Dead? Disinterested? Nobody on the BoG has said anything remotely approaching that. They've all said that without an arena deal, the team will move. With an arena deal, all bets are off. "That changes everything," said the owner of the Utah Jazz.
Changing all this is going to take a lot more than, "Oh, a couple of fellow owners are kind of keen on the idea."
I don't think anybody involved is saying, "Oh, a couple of fellow owners are kind of keen on the idea." At least not anybody with an IQ over 50. I'm certainly not saying that above.
Changing all this will take an arena deal, a star-studded potential ownership group, a fair amount of legal leverage, and a little bit of luck.
The legal leverage already exists with the city's lawsuit against the team. Discovery for that trial could get really ugly - the city is reportedly asking for every NBA team to open their books.
The star-studded potential ownership group is in place. The arena deal could be in place.
Obviously we'd need some good fortune as well. But the three above factors are pretty significant levers to keep the team here. And none of them depend on Clay Bennett.
The odds aren't great, but they are significantly worse without an arena deal in place. I'd rather make the effort and lose than to simply write the team off.
And the Hornets are not leaving New Orleans. Ditching that city in light of what happened with Katrina would be a P.R. disaster for the NBA.
To paraphrase your argument, George Shinn owns the Hornets. George Shinn has made clear behind the scenes that he would like to leave New Orleans, because the city isn't capable of supporting the team. The city didn't support the team even before Katrina.
I agree that it would be poor PR, but there's a reason the Hornets' lease was just changed to give Shinn an out if a minimum attendance level wasn't reached.
by Chris Hafner on Mar 10, 2008 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions
It would be a shame, I agree.
Personally, I think basketball is a great way to stay in shape, but it is a flawed game. Too much scoring for me. Give me a 1-0 soccer or baseball game and I am in heaven.
I guess I am also very skeptical about Stern and his intentions. He is lower on the food chain than Bud Selig IMO.
You've got some good stuff here.
There's a lot of hardball tactics going on here, clearly. It appears that Stern is very much on Bennett's side. Since the NBA is really chummy, the only real chance the Sonics have of staying in Seattle is, in fact, if a) the local group can get SOME support from the government -- get some legislative champion who can take charge and put his/her career on the line. In an election year, that's less likely to happen.
The b) to my a) that also has to happen is some backroom chummy handshake discussions between Stern, important owners, and Bennett have to be über-secretly discussing another team for Bennett to buy. It's possible, I suppose, but about as likely as the M's having the talent to win the World Series this year...
I was pretty sour on the NBA five years ago.
But now things have improved, I think. There are a bunch of good young players who play hard and appear to not have the character issues that drove so many people away. LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Dwight Howard, Deron Williams, Brandon Roy, Chris Paul - these guys are all young and fantastic. They play hard and respect the game. Then with the older guys you have Garnett, Nash, Nowitzki, Yao Ming, Elton Brand, Kobe (eh), Amare Stoudemire, Tim Duncan ... that's the best mix of talent since the Jordan/Magic/Bird/Drexler/Ewing/Robinson/Mullin/Stockton/Malone core.
Passing is back in, the game is being played faster again. The new(ish) salary structure is starting to pay benefits - outside of Isiah Thomas, fewer players who don't deserve the top deals are getting them. Notice I said fewer, not none, but that's really true of all the sports.
Yeah, things don't necessarily look great for keeping things here. As you note, a few things have to break right - the state government has to step up and do this, which doesn't look great. And then the delicate dance with the NBA has to go just right.
But yeah - there is a lot of backroom dealings going on right now, and a lot of posturing.
Now if you're talking about the Sonics, yeah - the Sonics are pretty hard to watch.
by Chris Hafner on Mar 10, 2008 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Honestly?
As long as you expect that 4th quarter collapse, and don't go into the second half expecting their lead to consummate into a victory, it's pretty fun, actually. I love Wilcox when he's on, and Collison, when he's healthy. Green is coming into his own, too.
It's guys like Manu Ginobli and Robert Swift who completely ruin NBA for me. But if the Sonics indeed leave, it wouldn't be very hard to join the Blazers' bandwagon. They've got a fantastic up-and-coming team that is very exciting to watch. It's just getting over my semi-loathedom for Mac-10 (for jumping across the Columbia) that's a little tough to do (although I would've wanted to leave the Walker/Sund Sonics, too).
by PositivePaul on Mar 10, 2008 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Ginobili
by jbrown on Mar 10, 2008 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm of two minds, actually
And there's nothing more wince-inducing than watching Damien Wilkins thinking he's a star - unless it's watching Durant put up another 6-25 game. Happily it seems like both of those situations have improved lately.
Really, it's just a young team that's playing like a young team, which is fine. The still-hopeful basketball fan in me is excited about the team's future, or at least it would be without the moving stuff.
Finally they're rebuilding the right way, they have some good young talent, and it feels like the players are playing hard. You can see the greatness in Durant, and I really like Collison and Green as complements for Durant long-term, and if you add another top-flight talent in the draft (say, a great point guard prospect like Rose) I could see the team being very good in a few years.
It'd be hard for me to root for the Blazers - it's been too big a rivalry for too long for that to be easy. And besides, if we lose the Sonics, I may just go all emo and turn entirely on the NBA. It's hard to say. There will be alcohol involved in that decision-making process, though, I'll say that.
Dammit
I fail.
by Chris Hafner on Mar 10, 2008 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Wilkins is unbelievably terrible
On the subject of the current NBA, the talent level, league, and product itself is as good as its ever been. The young stars are truly fantastic, and the list of them is extremely long. Also, for whatever reason, there are just fewer thugs in the NBA then before. Perhaps it is just terrific PR, but even look at a guy like AI. AI has always been the poster child for the NBA thug life, for everything that's wrong with the game. However, after he hit 30, he's become a true NBA superstar and one of the easiest players in the league to root for if you care at all about competitiveness and desire to win. I've never seen a player play harder in my life, and I've certainly never seen someone with his rep change that much in such a short timespan. The way he handled himself in Athens was such a breath of fresh air, it's unbelievable.
The game is just as good as you could possibly ask. Miami in 06 was an aberration, not the rule - they really were just a craptastic team that suddenly got hot and lucky and won a title. The best thing about the NBA right now is probably that every team has either a bright future or present (besides the Knicks, but making fun of Isiah has become a cottage industry in and of itself, so I won't even go there). There is no team in the NBA that I would argue doesn't have a great deal of hope in the present or very forseeable future. Even NYK has a ton of salary expiring soon and might be able to make a run at some star free agents.
Basically, the only thing that isn't looking up for the NBA right now is the Sonics and Clay Bennett. Here's the craziest thing about the whole SEA-OKC or NO-OKC thing - the people of OKC have spoken out that they'd rather just get an expansion team then rob another fanbase of their team, and the Hornets have already said that they probably will not use the out in their lease. To me, these sound like two pretty stand up things for professional sports franchises. If the league and David Stern can work this out, I think the NBA is very set to regain all of it's lost popularity. If you're not watching now, you should be - the product is great, and the players are legitimately fun to watch, and the vast majority seem like they're very good guys to boot. Even the troublemakers aren't the traditional thugs anymore. They're more of the Ron Artest "oh my goodness, what is Ron Artest going to do next!?!?!" variety who are amusing in their own special way. Anyway, I consider commitment to winning the most important attribute an athlete can have (outside of talent).
Basically, the NBA in 2008 has become what they hoped the WNBA would become ten years ago - a league in which fundamentals ruled and fans would come to watch for the quality of play rather than to follow star players. The only thing is that the WNBA sucks because the fundamentals AND the talent suck, but now that the NBA has both, it's become as good of a product as I can realistically imagine it being.
The NBA - where amazing happens
also, where truck parties happen - no, thank YOU, Stephon Marbury
by seattlebruin on Mar 10, 2008 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions
When is Lebron reluctant to pass?
Sorry
"Damien Wilkins thinks he is as talented as LeBron James and thus does not have to pass, even much of King James' greatness is his court vision and ability to create open shot opportunities for his teammates and then find them for said shots. However, Damien Wilkins sucks - thus in addition to his constantly heaving contested 21 footers (incidentally, LeBron also tends to do this as the shot clock is winding down), he thinks these are good shots. Damien Wilkins is my least favorite player in the NBA. And the NBA includes Desmon Farmer."
I apologize for any confusion due to my first statement.
by seattlebruin on Mar 10, 2008 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Presti and Durant:
by Chris Hafner on Mar 10, 2008 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed.
by PositivePaul on Mar 10, 2008 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Josh Hamilton on public relapse: ‘It was just wrong. That’s all it comes down to.’
- Photo: The Marlins’ ridiculous-looking home run sculpture is almost complete
- Yankees GM Brian Cashman lures alleged stalker into police dragnet
- Report: Josh Hamilton had a relapse with alcohol
- Happy Birthday Boy! Wes Ferrell, the best-hitting pitcher of all-time, would be 104
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
