Blazers moving to Vegas?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Every objection you made was Hopeful Idealism, not in the form it should have been--"If an owner ever thought he'd increase his profit by doing X, he'd be wrong, for the following reason: Y."

As I said, you guys need to wipe out your nonfinancial hope reasons and think like an owner, not like a hopeful fan.

Also, you forgot to say "smh."
You're arguing basic logic with false pretenses by trying to paint it as bias.

Based on the content of your posts, the "smh" is now implied.
 
I've had this argument with him. He refuses to acknowledge that the 1995 renovation wasn't top notch.

It's such a foolish argument to try and compare the Seattle Key Arena to an NBA arena.The arena issue could be why Balmer didn't buy the Sonics at the time and instead later purchased the Clippers. If anyone should be afraid of losing their team I would think Clipper fans have to be a bit on edge with Clippers having to share with the lakers and Balmer being from Seattle and Seattle is clamoring for a team if they can get the arena issue dealt with.
 
That's what Seattle thought. Less than 10 years into their new arena (also finished around 1995), the Sonics started publicly agitating for something new. In the last year or two, they let the arena go to pot, to pressure fans to back them.

(I don't think the Blazers are leaving, but I'm straightening out the thinking of idealists who have hopeful non-financial reasons.)
My point was that the Rose garden is not perfect and will need to be upgraded soon. So yeah i agree. Don't think that arena is going to last.
 
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.
Beat me to it on about every front.
 
I would prefer them to stay here, of course, but I would much prefer Vegas rather than Seattle. I hate everything about Seattle.
 
Vegas isn't Los Angeles. The League isn't jonesing for a team in Vegas like the NFL was for SoCal. The Raiders are going there because of Oakland's inability to sell the small Oakland Coliseum out on a regular basis. (Mt. Davis has been tarped off for years). There will, probably already in preliminary planning stages, be some local investment teams in Oregon ready to make an offer for the Blazers. Plus, Mr. Allen was an amazing man who was more than just a rich dude. He cared about people. I'm willing to bet he made sure the Blazers will end up staying in Oregon. That's who Paul Allen was. For all we know, Lillard's meeting with Paul may have covered this subject, just as much as what direction the team is heading in.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top