Sonics headed to OKC, money headed to Seattle

So much for the "team nickname staying in Seattle" bullshit.

As with everything else regarding pro sports franchise owners and legal agreements, they feel they just don't have to pay any attention to it (even though they publicly announced the terms of the agreement two days ago.)

That's the way of the world for silver-spoon billionaires. Debt, commitments, legal obligations: None of that shit applies to me. I'm rich.

 

WE GET IT, ALREADY! TAKE A PILL.

 

To be fair, perhaps that was the AP's call and not the OKC Carpetbaggers' call.

 

I would imagine they are waiting until the new name is announced, but one would think that since accuracy is kind of important in our business the AP might get a clue that one of the things the team surely will not be called is what they just called them.

 

Fixed, and cross-threaded. And remarkably fitting, either way.

 

Man they are gonna be bad, that Westbrook pick was questionable at best. Why not take Bayless?

 

Hey, you don't get to be as historically awful as this organization by drafting well. It's really strange how badly they've drafted and it doesn't matter who the GM is ... Bob Whitsitt, Wally Walker, Rick Sund, Sam Presti.

Between spending No. 2 overall picks on Gary Payton in 1990 and Kevin Durant in 2007 the team has drafted one player who has averaged double figures in a Seattle uniform for an entire season. That was Desmond Mason, who was quickly traded. To be fair, the team was great for about eight of those years so they were picking late in the first round, but there are just too many Mohamed Senes, Johan Petros and now Serge Ibakas to go around.

 

I grew up a Sonics fan, and on draft night I was trying to remember their last decent pick before Durant, and Payton was all I could come up with. You'd think just by accident they would have had somebody good in 18 years of drafts.

 

You ask the marketing types, the ones that do this sort of a thing for a living and they say having a major league professional team is about the best thing a city can do it put itself out there.
An NBA team has 42 home games, and if a quarter of those get televised nationally/regionally, that means how much in exposure? Try buying a four-hour block in prime-time on ESPN to showcase your product?
Forty-two of those home games will be datelined OKLAHOMA CITY by the traveling press horde.
From October to June, Oklahoma City will be in the conversation amongst those who discuss the NBA.
You'll get exposure in national magazines and papers as they put together articles on what it means to have a franchise in your town.
The one-time and first-season splash is worth billions in marketing world.

And the NBA players love going to Memphis. Easy drive to the casinos in Tunica.

 

Who all have vested interest in sucking up to the franchise owners and helping to fuel their hype machine.

Study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study has shown that the actual economic benefit of a major-league professional franchise to the economic health of a metropolitan area is extremely minimal, if it exists at all.

It's mainly redirecting money, which almost certainly would have been spent on other recreational/entertainment outlets anyway, into the pockets of the franchise owners and their affiliated businesses.

Almost every single study which shows a tangible economic benefit to a city having a professional sports franchise was commissioned/paid for the franchise owners or the leagues themselves. Almost every single one.

 

I just don't see it Jay.

I mean, does having the OKC dateline on an AP story really increase the chances some business will relocate there? And while OKC will "be in the conversation" what if it's negative? What if people are ripping the OKC Whatevers for inept performance on the court? Does that help the local Chamber of Commerce?

As Starman mentioned, a city getting an ROI with a stadium project is rare. The Ford Center was opened 2002 and to get an NBA team, the city had to pour an additional $121M into it. So the city has spent $210M on the arena already, will it get that back before Bennett is demanding more upgrades or renovations?

And given Oklahoma is a poor state (45th in average income) is it fair to put a $150 per person surcharge on residents with a 1 percent sales tax to build and renovate an arena for a billionaire's basketball team?



http://books.google.com/books?id=K-OuDxhiXkoC&dq=sports,+jobs+and+taxes&pg=PP1&ots=Z9rCJ3snce&sig=EwKHjNGgp9F52lB4lf2l-R-6Bek&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPR12,M1

 

Also, karma's a bitch.