Chris Hansen weighs a new option for bringing back Sonics

[JB_kings]

http://crosscut.com/2012/10/16/sports/111016/art-thiel-chris-hansen/

Now that eight months of throat-clearing have concluded, it is finally reasonable to speak of candidates to eventually fill the pro basketball void left by the human voids Howard Schultz and Clay Bennett.

1. Sacramento. 2. Milwaukee. 3. Charlotte.

Oh. One more. Expansion.

The last suggestion was uttered by Chris Hansen. In a conversation with editors and writers at Crosscut Tuesday, the day after his basketball/hockey arena project was buoyed by approving votes from the city and county council, Hansen answered the question of which with a what.

"There's not a lot of teams ready to relocate or up for sale," Hansen said. "There are processes underway now in the NBA, including revenue sharing and a luxury tax that can make small markets viable."

"In a few years, the league may consider expansion."
...

It's been my thinking lately that this is the best option for the NBA and Seattle. If they come up with a second city to go along with Seattle, then the Maloofs are in a bind looking for relocation sites.

And for Hansen, it's a lot cheaper to enter the NBA with an expansion team than trying to buy a team and pay off all the parties for a relocation.

 

[Bricklayer]

I think expansion is the way you would normally address this as well, same as they did in Charlotte. But there is a vocal anti-expansion movement on the too watered down theory (to which my counter has always been that when the league was 20 teams it was just made up of Americans, the extra teams are viable because it now draws players from across the enitre globe). And I think there is also an economic interest for the NBA in making sure that demand always outstrips supply when it comes to cities and franchises. When a team needs a new arena, if there are half a dozen NBAless cities out there interested in having a team, that greatly ups the franchise's leverage.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

It's been my thinking lately that this is the best option for the NBA and Seattle. If they come up with a second city to go along with Seattle, then the Maloofs are in a bind looking for relocation sites.

And for Hansen, it's a lot cheaper to enter the NBA with an expansion team than trying to buy a team and pay off all the parties for a relocation.

It wouldn't necessarily have to be a two-team expansion. It's cleaner, but the NBA operated perfectly well when it had 29 teams before the Bobcats joined in. Presumably 31 teams would also work. Seattle is an obvious expansion market, but I'm not sure there's an obvious second. Kansas City or Louisville perhaps. Las Vegas would seem to be out. Anaheim and San Jose would seem to be out. Virginia Beach/Norfolk seems like pie in the sky. Am I missing anywhere?

I don't know exactly how the numbers stack up as far as Expansion Franchise Fee vs. Buying a team + Relocation Fee. It might not end up being any cheaper.

 

[Jordan Goins]

It wouldn't necessarily have to be a two-team expansion. It's cleaner, but the NBA operated perfectly well when it had 29 teams before the Bobcats joined in. Presumably 31 teams would also work. Seattle is an obvious expansion market, but I'm not sure there's an obvious second. Kansas City or Louisville perhaps. Las Vegas would seem to be out. Anaheim and San Jose would seem to be out. Virginia Beach/Norfolk seems like pie in the sky. Am I missing anywhere?

I don't know exactly how the numbers stack up as far as Expansion Franchise Fee vs. Buying a team + Relocation Fee. It might not end up being any cheaper.

St. Louis?

 

[bajaden]

I think expansion is the way you would normally address this as well, same as they did in Charlotte. But there is a vocal anti-expansion movement on the too watered down theory (to which my counter has always been that when the league was 20 teams it was just made up of Americans, the extra teams are viable because it now draws players from across the enitre globe). And I think there is also an economic interest for the NBA in making sure that demand always outstrips supply when it comes to cities and franchises. When a team needs a new arena, if there are half a dozen NBAless cities out there interested in having a team, that greatly ups the franchise's leverage.

An added incentive for the league, is that on an expansion, the league makes more money since all the money for the purchase goes to the league instead of the selling owner. I've never bought into the theory of the league actually reducing the number of teams. That would be admitting failure, and the league doesn't like to admit failure. Plus, I'm sure the players union would be on board.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

i hope they do expansion so everyone is happy. if they need to take a team though, it better be the Bobcats. there attendence is a joke

 

[bajaden]

St. Louis?

My old home town, and the town that lost the St. Louis Hawks, thanks to Mr. low life Bidwell. The problem is, I'm not sure that St. Louis has an adequete facility. They've just built a new football stadium and a new baseball park. Seems like just yesterday to me that they were just finishing the old Busch Stadium. They have the Arena where they play Hockey, but I'm not sure it could be set up for basketball. That said, I'd love for my old home town to have a basketball team again.

 

[Trueblood]

My old home town, and the town that lost the St. Louis Hawks, thanks to Mr. low life Bidwell. The problem is, I'm not sure that St. Louis has an adequete facility. They've just built a new football stadium and a new baseball park. Seems like just yesterday to me that they were just finishing the old Busch Stadium. They have the Arena where they play Hockey, but I'm not sure it could be set up for basketball. That said, I'd love for my old home town to have a basketball team again.

Actually, the Scottrade Center holds 21,500 for basketball. That would make it the 3rd largest arena in the league. That's why they were an option for the Grizzlies and later the Hornets around a decade ago. The problem for St. Louis is that it would wind up being the smallest 4 sport city in America. I just don't think the interest is there.

OTOH, if the Rams are indeed headed back to L.A., I could see a movement to bring the NBA back to make it a 3 sport city again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottrade_Center

 

[Trueblood]

Another shot of good news for Sacramento is that Hansen can't start shopping for teams until the EIR comes back with no problems. That probably won't be for another year so that gives the city an extra year to work with the Kings or hope the Maloofs sell. Many fans up there seem to think that the Kings window will be closed by then and that they should aim for the Pacers or Bucks if there is no expansion.

If there is expansion, I'd prefer to see an even 32 team league. Vancouver has been getting tons of run lately. I'd expand to Seattle and Vancouver and make the Northwest a 6 team division...

NW-Seattle, Vancouver, Portland, Denver, Utah and Minnesota
Pacific-Current 5
SW-OKC, Memphis, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio.

I'd then move New Orleans to the EC and put them in the Southeast...

New Orleans, Orlando, Atlanta, Miami and Charlotte.

Put Washington in the Atlantic to go with the current 5 and make that the 6 team division.

Keep the central as is.

 

[JB_kings]

It wouldn't necessarily have to be a two-team expansion. It's cleaner, but the NBA operated perfectly well when it had 29 teams before the Bobcats joined in. Presumably 31 teams would also work. Seattle is an obvious expansion market, but I'm not sure there's an obvious second. Kansas City or Louisville perhaps. Las Vegas would seem to be out. Anaheim and San Jose would seem to be out. Virginia Beach/Norfolk seems like pie in the sky. Am I missing anywhere?

I don't know exactly how the numbers stack up as far as Expansion Franchise Fee vs. Buying a team + Relocation Fee. It might not end up being any cheaper.

It should be much cheaper. Guessing probably at least 100 million. I'm not sure how they arrive at the expansion fee number, but it probably has a number that is supposed to offset the loss of shared TV revenue by increasing the pool of teams splitting. Just a guess, it would probably be in the 10 million range for each of the 30 teams or 300 million. Plus all the fees the NBA can dream up. Even if they bloat that out to 350 million, it's still cheaper. Buying a team could run about 375 - 400 million range alone. Then you have a relocation fee that should run 35-50 million dollars. Then there is the costs associated with making the departed city whole. Some cities that would mean a lease buyout or in Sacramento's case it's paying off the '97 loan balance and the early pay off penalty. Probably could offset that with selling back the arena to the city, but it's still going to be a huge hit.

And as I recall, the expansion teams take a few years to ramp up in revenue and expenses. I think their salary cap number starts lower and ramps up over time as well as their shared revenue streams.