If the Sonics are to leave Seattle, it will be for a city that is freer with the tax dollars.
Is Oklahoma City that kind of place? Voters will decide that today, when they vote on a measure that would extend a current tax to raise more than $100 million to renovate the Ford Center and build a practice facility.
If that measure fails, experts on both sides of the issue suspect Oklahoma City will not get an NBA team any time soon.
I wonder if it might also be a sign that America is running out of cities ready to bend over backwards for NBA owners. Franchises are struggling to find their feet in markets like New Orleans, Memphis, and Charlotte. (Even the reigning champion San Antonio Spurs have had their hand out to taxpayers recently).
Politicians in Seattle did not leap at Clay Bennett's unattractive offer to contribute mightily to a stadium. That seemed to raise the ire of the NBA, which is determined to show Seattle how an NBA team should be treated.
The question is: are there cities out there willing to make getting an NBA team their top financial priority, even as more and more people are losing their homes to foreclosure?
The hard bargains owners have long driven with cities have always had an implied threat that if the city didn't come up with the goods, some other city would. I'm wondering if there really are a lot of those "other cities" out there.
I imagine Las Vegas is probably an attractive option in terms of ready dollars for a stadium. You hear about Kansas City, Anaheim, and the like. That's a list that Oklahoma City has long been on, too. Are they really ready to pony up the cash? We'll find out when all of today's votes are counted. And if Oklahoma City says no thanks, I'd have to think the bargaining positions of local governments dealing with owners across the NBA just got a little bit stronger.
And here's where there could be real progress. If a few owners are fed up with the high cost of doing business, it really does nothing for the league. But if owners across the league are feeling a little more pressure to be frugal, then the marketplace of the NBA could calm down a tad and reduce player salaries -- not by collective bargaining, but by reducing demand -- over the long haul. If players made 20% less money, the league wouldn't suffer one little bit, and owners might contribute more to stadiums.
