ImageImage

Future of the Trailblazers

Moderators: Moonbeam, DeBlazerRiddem, The Sebastian Express

User avatar
d-train
RealGM
Posts: 20,011
And1: 898
Joined: Mar 26, 2001
   

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#101 » by d-train » Thu May 23, 2019 8:16 pm

Cactus Jack wrote:
monopoman wrote:
d-train wrote:The last thing I would worry about as a Blazers fan, is that the Blazers might be moved to Seattle. Seattle couldn't keep the team they had. I worry more that Portland might not be any better than Seattle, which could put our franchise in jeopardy.

If you watch the detailed documentary about how the Sonics were moved it was almost a con job by the new owner. He lied throughout the process multiple times to the public and used some dirty tactics to get it moved, it's basically why no team has moved since. They talked about moving the Kings that never happened, and with how solid our attendance is year in year out moving the Blazers would be really **** stupid.

I mean the only thing the Blazers don't have here is a huge market but plenty of teams are in that same position, and moving to a larger market isn't that great because you are contending with usually 2 teams in that area.

Almost???

Fortunately for Portland, the Blazers aren't going anywhere any time soon. I still have my doubts about the Clippers long term future in L.A, however.

The Key Arena renovation will be completed in June of 2021. Just in time for the arrival of a new NHL expansion franchise (Fall '21). If the Inglewood arena proposal hasn't gained enough traction by that time, It wouldn't shock me if Ballmer did pull the rug out from under that fan base. Just a hunch. :wink:

Fwiw the Kings stayed in Sacramento because Chris Hansen & Ballmer made the mistake of being very upfront about wanting to move the team. So, the league intervened. If they had instead initially lied about their true intentions (like the OKC group), then they likely would have been successful in buying/moving it.

Why would Ballmer move the Clippers out of one of the top 3 locations for a NBA franchise? LA barely has to lift a finger to keep either of their teams.
Image
User avatar
DusterBuster
RealGM
Posts: 27,863
And1: 12,514
Joined: Jan 31, 2010
   

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#102 » by DusterBuster » Thu May 23, 2019 8:51 pm

JasonStern wrote:
DusterBuster wrote:
JasonStern wrote:
okay. here's Forbes' list of billionaires, which are the few people rich enough to potentially buy the Blazers (presuming they don't have their worth tied up in other ventures):

https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/#1fce3cdf251c

how many of these people do you honestly believe are drooling at the chance to purchase the Portland Trail Blazers?


You're assuming it has to be a single buyer. That's not the case.


what are you even arguing?


Arguing nothing, just pointing out that the fact that when discussing the sale of a team, it tends to be overstated the idea that a team needs to be "profitable" or have a "star" to sell for a big number. I see it mentioned a lot by fans here.

I don't believe that's something a prospective buyer of an NBA franchises even bats much of an eye at since they're going in with eyes wide open about what the realities of sports ownership is all about.
Devilzsidewalk wrote:DB is like the ultimate Wolves troll
User avatar
Cactus Jack
RealGM
Posts: 19,278
And1: 9,879
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
Location: Release the Kraken!
   

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#103 » by Cactus Jack » Thu May 23, 2019 9:24 pm

d-train wrote:
Cactus Jack wrote:
monopoman wrote:If you watch the detailed documentary about how the Sonics were moved it was almost a con job by the new owner. He lied throughout the process multiple times to the public and used some dirty tactics to get it moved, it's basically why no team has moved since. They talked about moving the Kings that never happened, and with how solid our attendance is year in year out moving the Blazers would be really **** stupid.

I mean the only thing the Blazers don't have here is a huge market but plenty of teams are in that same position, and moving to a larger market isn't that great because you are contending with usually 2 teams in that area.

Almost???

Fortunately for Portland, the Blazers aren't going anywhere any time soon. I still have my doubts about the Clippers long term future in L.A, however.

The Key Arena renovation will be completed in June of 2021. Just in time for the arrival of a new NHL expansion franchise (Fall '21). If the Inglewood arena proposal hasn't gained enough traction by that time, It wouldn't shock me if Ballmer did pull the rug out from under that fan base. Just a hunch. :wink:

Fwiw the Kings stayed in Sacramento because Chris Hansen & Ballmer made the mistake of being very upfront about wanting to move the team. So, the league intervened. If they had instead initially lied about their true intentions (like the OKC group), then they likely would have been successful in buying/moving it.

Why would Ballmer move the Clippers out of one of the top 3 locations for a NBA franchise? LA barely has to lift a finger to keep either of their teams.

Why would Ballmer leave a market like L.A.?


Spoiler:
Ballmer has tried to bring & own an NBA team in Seattle since before the team left. He was a partner with Chris Hansen & the two of them had a purchase agreement for the Kings. But, the league intervened on behalf of Sacramento. He then tried to buy & move the Bucks when they we're up for sale. But, the Milwaukee owner wouldn't sell to him. When the Clippers became available he then jumped on that opportunity.

Fwiw he still owns land in Seattle (With Hansen) that was intended for an arena. He's also talked openly about the failed Sacramento experience & has acknowledged that they went about it all wrong. He know's that you have to try to make it work in L.A. or any city for that matter before attempting to relocate a team.

For the longest time, the arena situation in Seattle was unsettled, until somewhat recently. Tim Leiweke came forward with a proposal to renovate the old Key Arena two years ago, and was able to close the deal. Seattle will have an NBA ready arena by 2021.

For a man so determined to bring the NBA back to Seattle, why would he then completely give up on that, just so he could own a team in Los Angeles?

Bringing the Sonics back, would make him a hero in the eyes of many. :wink:
Dominater wrote:Damn Cactus jack takin over

Sgt Major wrote:So their arena will be called Krakhouse and the fans Krakheads?

CrimsonCrew wrote:Russell Wilson is going to tear us apart if we play this way against him. He'll hang in and kill us deep.
wco81
RealGM
Posts: 10,816
And1: 3,768
Joined: Jul 04, 2013
     

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#104 » by wco81 » Thu May 23, 2019 9:42 pm

Ballmer has long ties to Seattle but he can easily afford to move his whole extended family to LA.

Unless he hates sunshine or something.

Yeah if he can't get a better local TV deal in Seattle as the only NBA team there compared to being the second NBA team in LA, it doesn't make financial sense to move the team, unless he thinks he can charge much higher ticket prices from Amazon and MS employees than he's getting down in LA.

Of course he could bleed millions and it won't affect him that much. Just a couple of billion less to leave to his heirs.
User avatar
Cactus Jack
RealGM
Posts: 19,278
And1: 9,879
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
Location: Release the Kraken!
   

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#105 » by Cactus Jack » Thu May 23, 2019 10:00 pm

wco81 wrote:Ballmer has long ties to Seattle but he can easily afford to move his whole extended family to LA.

Unless he hates sunshine or something.

Yeah if he can't get a better local TV deal in Seattle as the only NBA team there compared to being the second NBA team in LA, it doesn't make financial sense to move the team, unless he thinks he can charge much higher ticket prices from Amazon and MS employees than he's getting down in LA.

Of course he could bleed millions and it won't affect him that much. Just a couple of billion less to leave to his heirs.


People are getting caught up on money & team valuations (L.A. v. Seattle). But, when Ballmer eventually sells the team, he'd likely make up any difference in the long run, when you consider that the value of NBA team's continue to increase overtime.

If Ballmer did move the team, it would clearly be more than just about money. Restoring the Sonics had been a priority for him, at least at one time.
Dominater wrote:Damn Cactus jack takin over

Sgt Major wrote:So their arena will be called Krakhouse and the fans Krakheads?

CrimsonCrew wrote:Russell Wilson is going to tear us apart if we play this way against him. He'll hang in and kill us deep.
wco81
RealGM
Posts: 10,816
And1: 3,768
Joined: Jul 04, 2013
     

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#106 » by wco81 » Thu May 23, 2019 10:08 pm

I wonder if NBA team valuations will keep going up though.

Ratings this year hasn't been as strong as the last few years.

Will the networks pony up more money next time?

I see a lot of empty seats in the lower bowl at a lot of games. I think I saw it at Toronto.
User avatar
Cactus Jack
RealGM
Posts: 19,278
And1: 9,879
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
Location: Release the Kraken!
   

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#107 » by Cactus Jack » Thu May 23, 2019 10:22 pm

wco81 wrote:I wonder if NBA team valuations will keep going up though.

Ratings this year hasn't been as strong as the last few years.

Will the networks pony up more money next time?

I see a lot of empty seats in the lower bowl at a lot of games. I think I saw it at Toronto.

One other thing to keep in mind, In Seattle, he wouldn't have to pay for the arena. Key Arena's renovation is being privately financed by Tim Leiweke & his company (OVG). Along with partners like MSG (James Dolan).

He also has (Chris) Hansen as a partner (Sodo Arena).

Meanwhile In L.A. (Inglewood), Ballmer is the one having to pay. :wink:
Dominater wrote:Damn Cactus jack takin over

Sgt Major wrote:So their arena will be called Krakhouse and the fans Krakheads?

CrimsonCrew wrote:Russell Wilson is going to tear us apart if we play this way against him. He'll hang in and kill us deep.
wco81
RealGM
Posts: 10,816
And1: 3,768
Joined: Jul 04, 2013
     

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#108 » by wco81 » Thu May 23, 2019 10:34 pm

Yeah but if he owned the arena, he could make money for non NBA events, which he doesn't have to share with the league.

There's an advantage to being landlord rather than the tenant.
Wizenheimer
RealGM
Posts: 34,425
And1: 6,315
Joined: May 28, 2007

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#109 » by Wizenheimer » Thu May 23, 2019 10:43 pm

I'm fine with it and welcome it, but I do find it funny that in a thread in the Blazers forum titled "Future of the Traiblazers" there are a couple of Golden State fans discussing the past of the Supersonics

internet for the win
wco81
RealGM
Posts: 10,816
And1: 3,768
Joined: Jul 04, 2013
     

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#110 » by wco81 » Thu May 23, 2019 10:55 pm

Well the issues apply to the Trailblazers.

For all the big contracts which are looming for the Blazers, new arena would have to come into the discussion at some point.

Blazers payroll will have to go way up in the next 2-3 years just to keep the team at the #3 seed. Can they afford a big payroll and luxury taxes while staying at their current arena? If they're still in the same arena 5 years from now, team could be hurting.
User avatar
Cactus Jack
RealGM
Posts: 19,278
And1: 9,879
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
Location: Release the Kraken!
   

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#111 » by Cactus Jack » Thu May 23, 2019 11:17 pm

wco81 wrote:Yeah but if he owned the arena, he could make money for non NBA events, which he doesn't have to share with the league.

There's an advantage to being landlord rather than the tenant.

Sure. But, as I mentioned in my previous post, Hansen would potentially be paying for a 2nd arena in the Seattle area (for the NBA). Both he & Ballmer planned on being partners/owners of the Kings in Seattle. Before that deal fell through.

If Ballmer did move the team North, he would remain the majority owner. But, Hansen (As his partner) would front the cost for the Arena. So you see, either way he's covered.
Dominater wrote:Damn Cactus jack takin over

Sgt Major wrote:So their arena will be called Krakhouse and the fans Krakheads?

CrimsonCrew wrote:Russell Wilson is going to tear us apart if we play this way against him. He'll hang in and kill us deep.
User avatar
Cactus Jack
RealGM
Posts: 19,278
And1: 9,879
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
Location: Release the Kraken!
   

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#112 » by Cactus Jack » Thu May 23, 2019 11:19 pm

Wizenheimer wrote:I'm fine with it and welcome it, but I do find it funny that in a thread in the Blazers forum titled "Future of the Traiblazers" there are a couple of Golden State fans discussing the past of the Supersonics

internet for the win

:lol:

I apologize. I originally responded to a Blazer poster regarding the team.

Fwiw I live in Seattle. Lifelong Sonics fan. So, I thought I would speak up on the subject. :wink:
Dominater wrote:Damn Cactus jack takin over

Sgt Major wrote:So their arena will be called Krakhouse and the fans Krakheads?

CrimsonCrew wrote:Russell Wilson is going to tear us apart if we play this way against him. He'll hang in and kill us deep.
User avatar
monopoman
General Manager
Posts: 9,141
And1: 3,692
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
     

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#113 » by monopoman » Thu May 23, 2019 11:24 pm

I only brought it up because I think that nightmare scenario made the entire premise of moving a team look much worse. Yes the Kings were more upfront about wanting to move, but if the Pelicans won't move a team that gets garbage attendance even when they are pretty good and has a city that literally cares about NFL about 10 times more than the Pelicans stay it looks damn good that most other teams would stay.

Crap, I think New Orleans citizens would sign off in overwhelming support that if the Pelicans left the Saints would 100% win 2 Super Bowls in the next 5-10 years.
User avatar
Cactus Jack
RealGM
Posts: 19,278
And1: 9,879
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
Location: Release the Kraken!
   

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#114 » by Cactus Jack » Thu May 23, 2019 11:58 pm

monopoman wrote:I only brought it up because I think that nightmare scenario made the entire premise of moving a team look much worse. Yes the Kings were more upfront about wanting to move, but if the Pelicans won't move a team that gets garbage attendance even when they are pretty good and has a city that literally cares about NFL about 10 times more than the Pelicans stay it looks damn good that most other teams would stay.

Crap, I think New Orleans citizens would sign off in overwhelming support that if the Pelicans left the Saints would 100% win 2 Super Bowls in the next 5-10 years.

Here's the thing.

The only proven way to successfully relocate a team is as follows:

1. Buy said team & lie about your true intentions.
2. Make plans & seek public support for a new arena locally. Even tho you have no real plans to stay long-term. (OKC playbook)

Most successful franchise relocation's have followed these steps.

Sacramento kept their team solely because the Seattle group was upfront about their intentions from the start. It gave Kevin Johnson (Sacramento Mayor) time to put a prospective ownership group (Vivek Ranadive) together to prevent the sale of the team & eventual move. The NBA had no choice but to veto the Maloof/Hansen/Ballmer agreement (Due to bad PR).

The Pelicans meanwhile, aren't leaving New Orleans because the owner has made it clear the team is staying put. The Benson family has strong ties to the area.
Dominater wrote:Damn Cactus jack takin over

Sgt Major wrote:So their arena will be called Krakhouse and the fans Krakheads?

CrimsonCrew wrote:Russell Wilson is going to tear us apart if we play this way against him. He'll hang in and kill us deep.
User avatar
d-train
RealGM
Posts: 20,011
And1: 898
Joined: Mar 26, 2001
   

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#115 » by d-train » Fri May 24, 2019 1:20 am

wco81 wrote:Yeah but if he owned the arena, he could make money for non NBA events, which he doesn't have to share with the league.

There's an advantage to being landlord rather than the tenant.

You are assuming the "big events landlord business" is a good business. I'm not familiar with that business but I can assure your there are many factors that determine whether the business bleeds cash or is a license to print cash. The biggest factor is almost always location. I'll bet it's magnitudes better to own a fancy big area in LA than it is to own such a facility in Portland or Seattle. Yet, the cost to build a big fancy arena is about the same in all 3 locations.

I suspect the Moda Center is a huge money pit. I think it's likely many Blazers fans have the wrong idea about how great it is to own the Moda Center because of all the bad reporting and false narratives that were floated while Blazers and Moda Center had separate ownership. The Moda Center is a financial disaster and the only reason Paul Allen was better off to own it is because of the agreement Allen had with the banks that financed the building allowed the banks to confiscate almost all the ticket revenues from Blazers games. The telling fact is that Paul Allen lost less money while the banks owned the Moda Center than he did while he owned the Moda Center and made payments to the banks for the building's financing.
Image
User avatar
d-train
RealGM
Posts: 20,011
And1: 898
Joined: Mar 26, 2001
   

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#116 » by d-train » Fri May 24, 2019 1:25 am

Cactus Jack wrote:
wco81 wrote:Yeah but if he owned the arena, he could make money for non NBA events, which he doesn't have to share with the league.

There's an advantage to being landlord rather than the tenant.

Sure. But, as I mentioned in my previous post, Hansen would potentially be paying for a 2nd arena in the Seattle area (for the NBA). Both he & Ballmer planned on being partners/owners of the Kings in Seattle. Before that deal fell through.

If Ballmer did move the team North, he would remain the majority owner. But, Hansen (As his partner) would front the cost for the Arena. So you see, either way he's covered.

This is a dream you should just forget about. It ain't happening. Seattle's a great city and could very well get an NBA team again, but Ballmer isn't going to be the Sugar Daddy that makes it happen. Ballmer has moved on to bigger better things.
Image
Wizenheimer
RealGM
Posts: 34,425
And1: 6,315
Joined: May 28, 2007

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#117 » by Wizenheimer » Fri May 24, 2019 1:54 am

Cactus Jack wrote:
Wizenheimer wrote:I'm fine with it and welcome it, but I do find it funny that in a thread in the Blazers forum titled "Future of the Traiblazers" there are a couple of Golden State fans discussing the past of the Supersonics

internet for the win

:lol:

I apologize. I originally responded to a Blazer poster regarding the team.

Fwiw I live in Seattle. Lifelong Sonics fan. So, I thought I would speak up on the subject. :wink:


like I said, I was fine with the path the thread was taking...I just noticed a little irony
User avatar
Cactus Jack
RealGM
Posts: 19,278
And1: 9,879
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
Location: Release the Kraken!
   

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#118 » by Cactus Jack » Fri May 24, 2019 2:02 am

d-train wrote:
Cactus Jack wrote:
wco81 wrote:Yeah but if he owned the arena, he could make money for non NBA events, which he doesn't have to share with the league.

There's an advantage to being landlord rather than the tenant.

Sure. But, as I mentioned in my previous post, Hansen would potentially be paying for a 2nd arena in the Seattle area (for the NBA). Both he & Ballmer planned on being partners/owners of the Kings in Seattle. Before that deal fell through.

If Ballmer did move the team North, he would remain the majority owner. But, Hansen (As his partner) would front the cost for the Arena. So you see, either way he's covered.

This is a dream you should just forget about. It ain't happening. Seattle's a great city and could very well get an NBA team again, but Ballmer isn't going to be the Sugar Daddy that makes it happen. Ballmer has moved on to bigger better things.

Hey, in the end I could be completely off & Ballmer does settle in L.A. for the long term.

However, I've followed this saga for longer than I care to admit. Many of us (Former Sonics fans) have ridden the roller-coaster for far too long. But, I'll leave you with this, just taking into consideration all the recent momentum in the last couple of years surrounding the Arena in Seattle & the way in which Ballmer has gone about his quest for a new one in L.A. (Inglewood proposal), it's rings a lot of bells.

Tim Leiweke (Arena Developer) is a power player in all of this. The man has strong/deep connections to the NBA.
Dominater wrote:Damn Cactus jack takin over

Sgt Major wrote:So their arena will be called Krakhouse and the fans Krakheads?

CrimsonCrew wrote:Russell Wilson is going to tear us apart if we play this way against him. He'll hang in and kill us deep.
User avatar
d-train
RealGM
Posts: 20,011
And1: 898
Joined: Mar 26, 2001
   

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#119 » by d-train » Fri May 24, 2019 2:24 am

Cactus Jack wrote:Hey, in the end I could be completely off & Ballmer does settle in L.A. for the long term.

However, I've followed this saga for longer than I care to admit. Many of us (Former Sonics fans) have ridden the roller-coaster for far too long. But, I'll leave you with this, just taking into consideration all the recent momentum in the last couple of years surrounding the Arena in Seattle & the way in which Ballmer has gone about his quest for a new one in L.A. (Inglewood proposal), it's rings a lot of bells.

Tim Leiweke (Arena Developer) is a power player in all of this. The man has strong/deep connections to the NBA.

Ballmer has already settled in LA. You should get off the roller-coaster and move on like Ballmer has. Like I said, Seattle is a great city and can compete with other cities for a franchise the next time the NBA expands. Pinning your hopes on a current franchise moving to Seattle is fools gold.
Image
User avatar
Cactus Jack
RealGM
Posts: 19,278
And1: 9,879
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
Location: Release the Kraken!
   

Re: Future of the Trailblazers 

Post#120 » by Cactus Jack » Fri May 24, 2019 3:31 am

d-train wrote:
Cactus Jack wrote:Hey, in the end I could be completely off & Ballmer does settle in L.A. for the long term.

However, I've followed this saga for longer than I care to admit. Many of us (Former Sonics fans) have ridden the roller-coaster for far too long. But, I'll leave you with this, just taking into consideration all the recent momentum in the last couple of years surrounding the Arena in Seattle & the way in which Ballmer has gone about his quest for a new one in L.A. (Inglewood proposal), it's rings a lot of bells.

Tim Leiweke (Arena Developer) is a power player in all of this. The man has strong/deep connections to the NBA.

Ballmer has already settled in LA. You should get off the roller-coaster and move on like Ballmer has. Like I said, Seattle is a great city and can compete with other cities for a franchise the next time the NBA expands. Pinning your hopes on a current franchise moving to Seattle is fools gold.

You bring up an interesting point, with the arena situation finally settled however, idk how Seattle wouldn't be top of the list for Expansion. Hansen & the new NHL owner (David Bonderman) both want to own a team. My money would be on Bonderman btw. Who is also a minority owner of the Celtics (10%).
Dominater wrote:Damn Cactus jack takin over

Sgt Major wrote:So their arena will be called Krakhouse and the fans Krakheads?

CrimsonCrew wrote:Russell Wilson is going to tear us apart if we play this way against him. He'll hang in and kill us deep.

Return to Portland Trail Blazers