1. The two NBA examples involved teams having cities with little fan support and/or stadium issues. Doesnt apply here, and the NBA has learned from past mistakes.
2. Now you're just making up random hypotheticals that would never play out. If banks financing a prospective owner require a team to be moved, the NBA wouldnt allow the sale. Also, that would be riskier than keeping the team in a city with a proven track record and base of supporters. Also also, post-sale, remaining on Portland means no fixed-costs of leasing a stadium. More fixed costs = more financial risk.
3. Many of these destinations have similar or smaller metro populations than Portland, and many of them have other major sports teams. When you combine that with the costs of relocating and leasing/building a stadium, itd be opposite of "cashing in".
Seriously, some of those city suggestions were terrible. Vegas, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Buffalo are all smaller cities and have other pro sports teams. St. Louis, San Diego, and Baltimore are off similar size and have other sports too. None of them have a track record of support.
Columbus? Mexican cities? ...
These are all terrible reasons, and while you think you "disproved your errors", you did the opposite.