The more I see the situation play out in Seattle, the more I see that David Stern is really good at his job.
His current assignment: getting as many dollars as possible from taxpayers and to NBA owners.
Oklahoma City stepped up to the plate, with public dollars to remodel the public building they built some time ago.
Seattle, now, after some tantrums, is falling in line, too.
The NBA's chief adversary -- former Senator Slade Gorton -- has begun singing from the same songbook with Stern: the NBA in Seattle depends not on this or that owner having said this or that thing. It does not depend on the passion of fans, the integrity of business people, or any such child's play.
No, it depends wholly on the Washington State Legislature putting the cash on the barrel head for the kind of fancypants arena that will make it very hard for owners in Seattle to lose money.
Greg Johns of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that Gorton has condeded the Sonics. He no longer considers it feasible to keep this team in Seattle long-term. Gorton is, instead, floating the notion of replacing these Sonics with a relocated team, or an expansion team (which current owners have indicated could keep the Sonics' name and history):
"I think it's a possible goal. But I don't think it's likely to happen unless we have a tangible and complete plan for the remodeling of KeyArena. If we'd had that in hand last week, in my view we'd either have kept the Sonics or gotten assurance of another team."
Gorton believes Gov. Chris Gregoire needs to call a special session before the start of the June 16 trial and give the Legislature a chance to pass a measure that would provide the city an avenue to its final $75 million in funding toward the proposed $300 million KeyArena makeover.
"If we have a remodeled KeyArena or the promise of one that meets their requirements, and I'm convinced this remodel does, then I think we have a chance for another team," he said. "But the chances diminish rapidly after the trial is over. This present lease gives us leverage, so we need to get it done promptly. We have to focus on getting a solution out of Olympia." ...
"In the future, if there is a building, or the prospect of a building, I think there will be circumstances under which we would love to engage Seattle or King County in a dialogue," Stern said.
This the way business gets done. This is how the sausage gets made. If you love the NBA, this is an inextricable part of what you love, you know? There's taxpayer money supporting just about all of these buildings.
But that doesn't change the fact that there is also a lot of excess in this industry. (Check out the players' parking lot!) The kind of excess that does not exist in the real world of most of the people who pay those taxes.
When you hear politicians lament corporate welfare, this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
Look, I'm not naive. And I am a basketball fan.
I personally hope that the Washington State legislators hold their noses and do whatever it takes to make a nice building in Seattle, and I hope that some team or other does very well there for decades to come.
(I look forward to attending that building, and seeing the home team lose to the Blazers.)
But I also hope that in the long run, we can take this bit of nastiness, and use it to get smarter. Surely there is a way to offer local owners some reasonable degree of taxpayer support, without putting a gun to the head of every fan who'd like to see her team stick around decade after decade.
Instead of being extorted into giving a bundle, can't we agree to give a fair sum? That's how lots of industries work.
Right now, the way it commonly happens is that teams ask for a sweetheart deal, and if they don't get it, they leave for somewhere that will give a sweetheart deal. All that happens with the blessing of the NBA, an organization that serves the owners.
Wouldn't it be great the NBA could, in the interest of its fans, have some level of formal commitment to the cities that have made the league great? I don't know what it would look like -- but maybe you'd have to have certain poor attendance, and certain cash losses, before the NBA would accept your application to move.
I'm thinking out loud here -- your comments are welcome. But ... what if David Stern's role was to say to Clay Bennett -- well, we're committed to a meaningful process to have a team in Seattle. If that doesn't work for you, perhaps we should find a different owner, instead of a different city.
Then the question is: is there a billionaire out there who is crazy enough to spend a huge amount on a high-risk, high-profile business? Yes! It seems the answer to that question is almost always yes. And bringing that market force into play would be a way to reduce taxpayer's role in the stadium game.
In the meantime, congratulations on getting a team, Oklahoma City.
And is there any hope for Seattle fans?
They would have to find a team first. Are any ready to move? You hear rumbles about Memphis. But, consider this: when the NBA held its board of governor's meetings to vote on the move, the Sonics actually applied to move each of the next three years (depending when they could get free of their lease).
But one team objected, pointing out that by NBA rules, the board could only vote on a move to occur in the next year.
Why would a team point that out? Maybe because they had an idea about moving to Oklahoma City.
The team that pointed that out, according to Percy Allen of the Seattle Times, was the New Orleans Hornets. That doesn't mean the Hornets want to move to Seattle or anywhere else, but combined with their recent negotiation of an escape clause after next season from their lease in New Orleans, it sure seems like a team that isn't locked in place.
Would that be progress? I don't think the people of New Orleans would see it that way ... but that's how the NBA is operating these days.
