Wow- Supersonics leaving Seattle. - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

8ballrollin · 07-03-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

But I never claimed it was "not fair."

Great. We have that in common, unless you can find a link where a Sonics fan on this board has said it's "not fair." Or was that lost in your response.

TripletDaddy · 07-03-2008, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8ballrollin

Great. We have that in common, unless you can find a link where a Sonics fan on this board has said it's "not fair." Or was that lost in your response.

This whole lament has been a giant insinuation that there was some sort of nefarious action taking place....that the city was screwed over.

Perhaps I misread. Maybe this board is simply teeming with Sonics fans who are now sad that the team is moving but have no problem with the transaction. Is that what you are saying? that the move is completely fair, on the up and up, and from a free market perspective, you actually support this new owner's right to move his newly-purchased asset? if so, then you are right...we are on the same page.

mpfunk · 07-03-2008, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cougjunkie

Ian Furness was solid here in Utah, but for some reason I thought he went to Portland and not Seattle.

Regardless the Sonics moving is a travesty imo.

I also suspect that DDD shed a tear when the Raiders moved to Oakland.

He did go to Portland initially. He had a radio show with Jason Scucanek (however the hell you spell his name). He left for Seattle about two years ago.

8ballrollin · 07-03-2008, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

This whole lament has been a giant insinuation that there was some sort of nefarious action taking place....that the city was screwed over.

Perhaps I misread. Maybe this board is simply teeming with Sonics fans who are now sad that the team is moving but have no problem with the transaction. Is that what you are saying? that the move is completely fair, on the up and up, and from a free market perspective, you actually support this new owner's right to move his newly-purchased asset? if so, then you are right...we are on the same page.

I believe the premise of your post is incorrect.

No thinking person thought the Sonics were going to stay after they were sold to non-local ownership. No one cares about arguments over owner's rights to sell assets. Of course, they can do what they want - as long as it's ratified by the league and other owners (except in the NFL case of Al Davis, who had to sue to move his team).

On the city being screwed, it depends on what you mean by city.

If by city, you mean the municipality of Seattle, who cares? They've been made whole via the settlement. If by city, you mean the fans of a 40-year-old franchise (that won a NBA title), then yes, they've been screwed over. By who? That's open for debate.

On the free market side, I don't see US sports leagues operating in free markets (see antitrust exemptions). I think The Premiership in England is better model of a free market in a sports league. You can build a team in any city you want (I think there are five in London). If a team wins, they stay in the League, if not...they're relegated. If the NBA worked this way, the Clippers and teams like them, would have been kicked-out of the league years ago by more competitive teams. I digress.

MikeWaters · 07-03-2008, 08:48 PM

I'm supposed to get upset that someone sold the team to an Okie and the Okie is moving the team to Okie-ville?

SeattleUte · 07-04-2008, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Hey, I was unhappy, to be sure.

But I never claimed it was "not fair."

LA had the chance to keep the Raiders but they got distracted by a sutpid land grab that is still going on to this very day.

So was I bummed that we lost the Raiders? Sure. Was it "unfair" or was it "the NFL's fault?" No.

Seattle wants to try to paint this as an NBA con job. In reality, Seattle should have agreed to the new ownership's demands and pay for the arena. If they didnt want to pay (which is fine, too), then they should not whine about unfairness. What is really laughable is that Seattle sees that a rich investor with ties to OKC buys their team....and he makes a very clear demand to pay up or else.....so Seattle calls his bluff and then gets burned. What else were they expecting?

TripletDaddy, let me try to make this really clear for you. Here in Seattle WE DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE NBA!!! The only people who care are those gross sports radio hacks. No one is really even talking about it. We don't care. Had we cared, we could have kept them because WE CAN BUY AND SELL OKLAHOMA CITY A THOUSAND TIMES. Capisci?!

I'll make you a prediction. Clay Bennett will never pay that $35 million because we're not going to renovate the Key and we don't want an NBA team. We have values.

TripletDaddy · 07-04-2008, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8ballrollin

I believe the premise of your post is incorrect.

No thinking person thought the Sonics were going to stay after they were sold to non-local ownership. No one cares about arguments over owner's rights to sell assets. Of course, they can do what they want - as long as it's ratified by the league and other owners (except in the NFL case of Al Davis, who had to sue to move his team).

On the city being screwed, it depends on what you mean by city.

If by city, you mean the municipality of Seattle, who cares? They've been made whole via the settlement. If by city, you mean the fans of a 40-year-old franchise (that won a NBA title), then yes, they've been screwed over. By who? That's open for debate.

On the free market side, I don't see US sports leagues operating in free markets (see antitrust exemptions). I think The Premiership in England is better model of a free market in a sports league. You can build a team in any city you want (I think there are five in London). If a team wins, they stay in the League, if not...they're relegated. If the NBA worked this way, the Clippers and teams like them, would have been kicked-out of the league years ago by more competitive teams. I digress.

Besides MLB, which other US sports are exempt from anti-trust?

TripletDaddy · 07-04-2008, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

TripletDaddy, let me try to make this really clear for you. Here in Seattle WE DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE NBA!!! The only people who care are those gross sports radio hacks. No one is really even talking about it. We don't care. Had we cared, we could have kept them because WE CAN BUY AND SELL OKLAHOMA CITY A THOUSAND TIMES. Capisci?!

I'll make you a prediction. Clay Bennett will never pay that $35 million because we're not going to renovate the Key and we don't want an NBA team. We have values.

Fair point. I actually believe you. Had more people cared about the team, it would likely still be there.

SeattleUte · 07-04-2008, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Fair point. I actually believe you. Had more people cared about the team, it would likely still be there.

But the way you keep glorifying this as an example of capitalism at work is really horse shit. Today I thought, we're subsidizing Kobe Bryant's $30 million salaray with taxpayer money, and paying peanuts to kids we send to Iraq and Afghanistan to get ripped apart. A crazy connection I know, but both professions are paid out of the public purse. This makes me want to have nothing to do with professional sports. The U.S.A. has become a freak show. Worse than Augustan Rome by far.

BarbaraGordon · 07-04-2008, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSizzle36

On second thought, I forgot about OU Football!

ha. ha. ha.

07-03-2008, 08:48 PM	#25
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I'm supposed to get upset that someone sold the team to an Okie and the Okie is moving the team to Okie-ville?