leaning to Seattle and then Stern turned the owners to Sacramento. Right on, lack of sleep is getting to me.
While I did post in this thread that Sonic owners floated ideas about major changes to KeyArena at age 6, that wasn't what I was talking about when I said "wrong." I meant that Key is not just a refurbishment or rebuild or new façade of the Coliseum, which was torn down. Key was built brand new in 1995. It's very important. Critics say the Sonics should have moved because they played in a 1962 arena and they are wrong. Most websites are wrong, like this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KeyArena
Yep, we're on the same page then. I saw Key Arena first and was pretty impressed it with...then I saw the Rose Garden. It was like comparing a nice college arena to a nice NBA arena. No real comparion.
The message of not building an arena and losing your team was well established with the Sonics. The mere fact of leaving a historical team in place versus casually moving another franchise within 5 years to simply replace one in Seattle that couldn't keep their team probably doesn't look stable for the league as a whole. Like I said, if all it takes to move a team is to simply outbid everyone else, then any team...at any time...could be moved anywhere if the money is right, which is the wrong way to run a cohesive league. As stated earlier, if the Seattle group wanted to offer $100m more and put forth an iron clad guarantee (which may not mean that much as seen in Seattle's case) to keep the team in Sacramento, then the Board of Governors would have likely approved. Remember, they voted down the relocation, not the sale of the team so your insistence that the owners "made" the Maloofs take $100 million less is not accurate. The owners voted not to allow the franchise to be moved from Sacramento to Seattle.
I'd say someone sure likes the Stern Koolaid. With him headed out the door soon (but not soon enough), I guess we won't know for sure what any of this all meant, but it'll be interesting to see how things change/don't change under Silver. And, it'll be interesting to see if Hansen comes back with an offer for another team, waits for expansion or gives it up. The realist in me says the owners' greed will win out against concerns for the fans over the long haul, but it'd be great if you were right. Edit: Sorry, one other takeaway from this crazy process is that owners and buyers will be a lot more sly going forward. No owner wanting to move their team will do it without first sabotaging local arena attempts so they can point the finger. No prospective owner wanting to buy and move a team will admit it on the front end. They'll sabotage it the same way Bennett did and move the team when they can. If they were attempting to prevent another Seattle, they've actually increased the likelihood that it will happen again. The only friend of the fans would be a nice long lease, which would prevent those kind of games. Unfortunately, our lease is starting to get long in the tooth.
what "Stern" Kool Aid? If there is an interested group that wants to keep the Kings in Sacramento and they agreed to fund a stadium (their old one was pretty horrible)...then what's the problem? Sacramento is the only one with a stake to lose here. They have an NBA franchise, Seattle does not. Seattle had EVERYTHING to gain from uprooting a franchise. Honestly, you speak as the Sacramento King's franchise is ENTITLED to Seattle and anything differing from that is "drinking Stern's Kool Aid" like its some big scandal. Its pretty cut and dry. They don't want to move the Kings to Seattle since there is interested parties who want to keep it in town. This whole incident should add comfort to the Blazers staying in Portland...showing that a small market team will have the support of the NBA Board of Governor's if there is a hostile takeover attempt by an outside party (Hansen's group) as long as an ownership group exists that will stay locally and it just isn't a bidding war. Of course, you may say that this may have Seattle "target" the Blazers if Allen is going to sell. Well, any city can "target" the Blazers if there is money and interest...so big deal. Even if our arena is "long in the tooth", its not a dilapidated shithole like Key Arena/Arco Arena were, so no worries there. Having a corporation put some naming rights on the Rose Garden may actually strengthen the long term viability.
I'm saying that your take is exactly what Stern would want you to say. He would give you an A+. I'm not saying Seattle is entitled to anything. You think the city where the team resides is entitled. I'm saying the owners aren't just entitled, they are titled...they own the team. You are hoping that the owners will put the fans first (and I do too) and leave money on the table, but I'm guessing that their own increase profits will win the day more often than not. As a Blazer fan, I don't take any comfort in the Sacramento decision. The only way I would be comforted is if I felt that Portland would pay whatever amounts an owner or the NBA would demand...and I don't think Portland would. The city would try, but it would have it's limits...quite possibly more than other cities. Key Arena isn't a dilapidated shithole...it's the same age as the Rose Garden and it's a very nice but VERY undersized arena that is lacking in amenities. You are looking at the Rose Garden as it compares today, but the key is how it compares to other arenas ten years from now. How many new arenas will be built between now and then? I've seen sketches of the proposed arenas in both Sacramento and Seattle (which, by the way, Hansen is still apparently pursuing) and they're pretty cool. Those are what we'll be needing to look at.
So what's gong to happen with Seattle's new proposed arena? Hansen won't build it still right? Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5...FAMS!
Actual construction can't begin until an NBA team is approved to go to Seattle, but apparently, he's continuing to move through the permitting and environmental review process. If that stops, it'd probably be the first sign that he's giving up. The signed arena deal between Hansen, the City and the County has something like a 5 year term. If there's no team in town by then, the arena deal just expires. That said, there's a mayoral race in town this fall and the incumbent pro-arena mayor isn't looking too good for re-election. One of the candidates is hardcore against it. Things could go south fast if the wrong guy is elected.
Key Arena was built in 1962. I guess it was RENOVATED around the same time, but that's not even close to being the same. I guess I must be drinking that Kool Aid again and I should be seeing it as the same. The Rose Garden is actually a better arena than Staples Center...I'm not really worried about the long term viability of the RG.
God, you guys don't read. Multiple people on here have said that they saw key arena torn down to the steel beams. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...e-numbered-whether-or-not-we-get-a-sodo-arena At some point you can't keep calling it a mere renovation.
I will give my left nut if I don't have to explain that the 1995 rebuild of Key Arena was a near total new building ever again. The two huge beams criscrossing the structure remained and apparently they re used some acoustic panels. Otherwise it was all new then, about he same time as the Rose Garden was completed.
Repeat after me, everyone. WRONG. Honk your horns at this guy as you say it. WRONG. Keeping only 2 supporting iron trusses does not = keeping the framework and foundation.
This isnt even the issue. What is at the core are "basketball decisions".. that is not moving teams around is better for the league hoop fam
Foundation was new in 95 too...they dug deeper...it was a lot of trucks moving a lot of dirt. It was new. Trust me, I saw it before, during and after. Argue semantics all you want. The funny thing is you nailed a big part of the problem...it was one of the smallest arenas in the league the day it opened.
When I used to argue with Okies, it was the central issue. They said their lousy little Ford arena was better than the 45-year-old KeyArena, which was actually about as young as Ford.
