Bucks Diary

Monday, July 07, 2008

My Domino Theory about Seattle and the Bucks

Well, well, well. The Seattle Supersonics are not three days expired and already the first signs of a domino effect relocating the Bucks to Seattle have emerged.

Like most initial signs, this one came nonchalantly enough. It took the form of a little article tucked near the bottom of the sports section of yesterday's New York Times entitled "Seattle Hopes Team Is in its Future".

The article described Seattle's efforts to renovate Key Arena, and how, once that task is completed, the city intended to use the "new" arena as a "come hither" to some wayward NBA franchise. The three most likely targets mentioned in the article were Memphis, Sacramento, and your Milwaukee Bucks. Just as I feared.

If you recall, I dreaded the possibility of Seattle losing the Sonics to Oklahoma City because I feared the Bucks precarious financial status operating out of Milwaukee would make them an ideal candidate to replace the Sonics in Seattle. After all, Seattle is something like the 10th largest market in the United States, and I believe Milwaukee is down in the 50s, somewhere below Cincinnati.

I also secretly believe(d) the "Seattle Threat" was at least passively engineered by Commissioner Stern. After all, why would he have stood idly by and watched the Sonics relocate to a far lesser market unless he wanted the Seattle market as leverage for use in future stadium financing debates? Think about it. 15 years or so earlier he stood four square in the way of the Timberwolves move to New Orleans. It was a done deal until he stepped in. Yet this time he seemed to be head cheerleader for the Sonics move to Oklahoma. Curious.


At July 7, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Anonymous paulpressey25 said...

I agree.

What makes zero sense to me is the fact that New Orleans kept the Hornets. Other than for politically correct reasons, the Charlotte team should have never been allowed to locate there.

And after Katrina, the Hornets needed to stay in OKC.

Our lone good news is that Memphis didn't get Derrick Rose and hopefully that team will continue to suck for another year or two. They'll be the ones to head West to Seattle.

At July 7, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Blogger TCW said...

That's right. That was the first domino. And Stern was ADAMANT about keeping the Hornets in the 1/2 city of New Orleans... a city that couldn't support the team at full strength. Bizarre... unless you assume Stern has a plan.

Memphis, you're right, seems a hell of a lot shakier. I remember once I was in Cabo San Lucas and I met a guy from Memphis. I asked him if he was a Grizzlie fan. He acted as if I asked him if he was a communist. That small incident somehow told me all I needed to know about the attachment between the Grizzlies and Memphis.

At July 7, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Anonymous paulpressey25 said...

For the next five years I only see two cities that are really viable for an NBA team. Seattle and Las Vegas.

If we can somehow send the Memphis team to Vegas, New Orleans then may be the team to go to Seattle if they get their act together up there.

But for the drafting of Chris Paul, New Orleans would be in OKC right now I believe. Sad to say that a great NBA town with history like Milwaukee or Seattle can have their fate determined by some lotto picking luck.

At July 8, 2008 at 3:25 AM, Blogger TCW said...

You're right about Vegas being in the mix. The New York Times also mentioned... aahhh I threw it away. I think Kansas City, if you can believe it. They're a one time loser, though, with the Kings in the 70s and 80s. Where the hell was the other city? I wanna say Anaheim, but that doesn't make sense. I have to look that article up. (I always thought St Louis would somehow get back into the Association. They've got the market size... more so than Kansas City.)


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home