- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 46,047
- Likes
- 35,194
- Points
- 113
Nobody, nobody thought the City of Seatlle would let their Sonics move. The politics of not finding a way to fund/refurb an arena allowed the Okie to pull up his tent and move. And the league approved it.
In the case of the Sonics, it was the perfect storm.
They didn't own the arena (Blazers do). Their owner was frugal as hell (their owner was barely a billionaire when the Sonics were sold). The city of Seattle just paid for the demolition of the Kingdome, the building of the new baseball stadium and a football stadium (Portland has none of that). Their arena was insufficient by NBA standards (the RG is still really nice, tho old). They were 1 of 3 (at the time) major league sports teams and also UW....(Portland has (checks notes) the Timbers).
Another thing that Portland has in its favor is the backlash the NBA still faces for creating a hole in the market by having Seattle leave for OKC. I really doubt that most Sonic fans would want the Blazers to move there anyways (as much as they'd probably laugh at the idea of Portland losing a team, they know what it's like and deep down inside they wouldn't want that for this market).
Having a team in Portland AND Seattle is smarter, better and financially viable than only having a team in Seattle, or only having a team in Portland. But if the NBA wants to basically alienate a fanbase that has been loyal and strong for going on 46 years now (the first 6 seasons weren't as strong as the next 45), they'll end up losing the fans to other things.
I know if they were to leave Portland, I'd never watch another NBA game again. Even if a team came back to Portland. I stopped watching the NHL when they had their strike out year, and haven't paid attention since.
