Most League Insiders Consider It A Formality Expansion Will Include Seattle

[RealGM Wiretap]

The NBA descended on Seattle's Climate Pledge Arena to watch Gonzaga take on Alabama in a college basketball game. While many came away excited about various draft prospects, some came away thinking Climate Pledge Arena is ready to host an NBA expansion team.

Formerly known as Key Arena, Climate Pledge Arena underwent a massive refurbishment. Part of those efforts were to get the building ready to host the expansion Seattle Kraken of the NHL. The construction added more seats, upgraded the concourses and brought the building up to standards for the current time.

If, and when, the NBA expands, most league insiders consider it a formality Seattle will get a team. The major northwestern city has been without an NBA franchise since the Seattle SuperSonics moved Oklahoma City in 2008. There are several groups interested in bringing a team back to Seattle, and the expectation is that club would retain the Sonics moniker.

Via John Hollinger/The Athletic

[deeps6x]

I think they meant to say Vancouver.

[the_process]

Expansion is a horrible idea. Just move the Wolves to Seattle, change their name to the (Super)Sonics, retroactively declare OKC a 2007 expansion team and give all previous history back to the Sonics, and call it a day.

[dougthonus]

It's hard for me to understand the economics of expansion right now.

Say the buy in is 2B, each other team gets 66M for the new team, you're then diluting the TV revenue in perpetuity over that. Doesn't really seem worth it to me in the long run.

[Kingsway_fan]

they should just move oak or Memphis or one of those small market teams there...

[RipCityKJ]

With the way the Blazers are being ran right now it's just a matter of time before Jody Allen packs them up and moves to Seattle.

[Ballknowledge]

It's hard for me to understand the economics of expansion right now.

Say the buy in is 2B, each other team gets 66M for the new team, you're then diluting the TV revenue in perpetuity over that. Doesn't really seem worth it to me in the long run.

You can’t forget the local TV network deals, ticket and merchandise sales and also the growth of the game through gaining new fans supporting a local team.

There definitely is a certain point where it would be too many teams and it would dilute the overall product but I don’t think they are there yet.

[dougthonus]

You can’t forget the local TV network deals, ticket and merchandise sales and also the growth of the game through gaining new fans supporting a local team.

The local TV deals don't boost money for the other teams, nor is it likely adding new minor markets boosts that long term merchandise revenue in an amount greater than the split they would take up. The teams would then have to start sharing out national TV money and lose money there too.

There definitely is a certain point where it would be too many teams and it would dilute the overall product but I don’t think they are there yet.

It's not really about dilution of the product. The product would be less diluted if there were 16 teams. It's about whether the owners get enough revenue from a split to off-set what they gave up in perpetuity afterwards. It's pretty unlikely that the league is going to grow more as a whole due to expansion in a meaningful way.

[shrink]

It's about whether the owners get enough revenue from a split to off-set what they gave up in perpetuity afterwards. It's pretty unlikely that the league is going to grow more as a whole due to expansion in a meaningful way.

Expansion is a longterm venture, both in slicing up the pie further, and growing that pie by adding bigger ovens. SEATAC is the 14th largest market in the US (Minneapolis is 15th, mr. process), and three times the size of markets like Memphis and New Orleans. If the NBA can’t make money getting back into Seattle, there is something wrong with the product as a whole.

If Seattle is a foregone conclusion, I wonder what the other market would be? There is only one bigger without a team - Tampa (11th). After that your next biggest is St Louis (20) but it’s much smaller than Seattle - two thirds the size. My guess is Las Vegas (40), who could fill stadiums with visitors who come to see a (nba) show. It would be interesting to see how a home team does with home visitors? Does that breed loyalty? Or do fans from cities without an nba team adopt Vegas as their own?

Anyway, I think we will finally see expansion. Whether it’s a smart move for the owners .. I don’t know .. but being smart hasn’t stopped them from doing some pretty dumb things in the past.

[Pickled Prunes]

You can’t forget the local TV network deals, ticket and merchandise sales and also the growth of the game through gaining new fans supporting a local team.

The local TV deals don't boost money for the other teams, nor is it likely adding new minor markets boosts that long term merchandise revenue in an amount greater than the split they would take up. The teams would then have to start sharing out national TV money and lose money there too.

There definitely is a certain point where it would be too many teams and it would dilute the overall product but I don’t think they are there yet.

It's not really about dilution of the product. The product would be less diluted if there were 16 teams. It's about whether the owners get enough revenue from a split to off-set what they gave up in perpetuity afterwards. It's pretty unlikely that the league is going to grow more as a whole due to expansion in a meaningful way.

Yes, there are diminishing returns, but how many more people would watch National games or buy merch. if there were a team in Seattle? That is a fairly large and disillusioned fan base.

I think a team in Vegas would be a pretty bad idea. Every game would be an away game because fans of opposing teams would use the games and cheap flights as an excuse to go to Vegas. Not to mention that Casinos would comp the tix to high rollers that wouldn't care enough to even show up.

[dougthonus]

Yes, there are diminishing returns, but how many more people would watch National games or buy merch. if there were a team in Seattle? That is a fairly large and disillusioned fan base.

I don't think expansion would increase the value of your national TV deal at all. When you're negotiating with ESPN for the next deal and TNT for the next deal, I don't think you get more total money with 32 teams than you do with 30 teams, but you are now splitting that money 30 ways.

I think a team in Vegas would be a pretty bad idea. Every game would be an away game because fans of opposing teams would use the games and cheap flights as an excuse to go to Vegas. Not to mention that Casinos would comp the tix to high rollers that wouldn't care enough to even show up.

To your larger point, Seattle is certainly a better market than Vegas, I agree Vegas would be a crap market. You could probably move several teams from their current location to Seattle and improve their revenue picture if a good stadium is in place.

[Pickled Prunes]

Yes, there are diminishing returns, but how many more people would watch National games or buy merch. if there were a team in Seattle? That is a fairly large and disillusioned fan base.

I don't think expansion would increase the value of your national TV deal at all. When you're negotiating with ESPN for the next deal and TNT for the next deal, I don't think you get more total money with 32 teams than you do with 30 teams, but you are now splitting that money 30 ways.

I think a team in Vegas would be a pretty bad idea. Every game would be an away game because fans of opposing teams would use the games and cheap flights as an excuse to go to Vegas. Not to mention that Casinos would comp the tix to high rollers that wouldn't care enough to even show up.

To your larger point, Seattle is certainly a better market than Vegas, I agree Vegas would be a crap market. You could probably move several teams from their current location to Seattle and improve their revenue picture if a good stadium is in place.

If the destination is Seattle it will certainly increase viewership and therefore increase the bidding for the next TV deal. That is a huge marketplace. It's important to remember that Seattle would be on the positive side of BRI; they would be adding to the pot, not taking from it. Owners would vote "yes" to that in a heartbeat.

A team in St. Louis would be more of a gamble but I'm sure it would work out. That's a great sports town and they're about 250 miles from (IND) the closest NBA franchise. Draw a circle with a 50 mile radius around St' Louis and that is a lot of potential viewership. And there is more to BRI than national TV deals. A new franchise anywhere would a big bump in revenue for merch sales the first couple of years.

If BRI is your main focus than Mexico City would be the obvious destination. The whole country would be watching and buying up merch, along with a large portion of the Southwest US. But man that team would suck. No free agents are signing in Mexico City. The fact that the NBA continues to talk about that shows where their focus is. ($$$)

[the_process]

It's hard for me to understand the economics of expansion right now.

Say the buy in is 2B, each other team gets 66M for the new team, you're then diluting the TV revenue in perpetuity over that. Doesn't really seem worth it to me in the long run.

Cuban has already said as much.

[the_process]

It's about whether the owners get enough revenue from a split to off-set what they gave up in perpetuity afterwards. It's pretty unlikely that the league is going to grow more as a whole due to expansion in a meaningful way.

Expansion is a longterm venture, both in slicing up the pie further, and growing that pie by adding bigger ovens. SEATAC is the 14th largest market in the US (Minneapolis is 15th, mr. process), and three times the size of markets like Memphis and New Orleans. If the NBA can’t make money getting back into Seattle, there is something wrong with the product as a whole.

If Seattle is a foregone conclusion, I wonder what the other market would be? There is only one bigger without a team - Tampa (11th). After that your next biggest is St Louis (20) but it’s much smaller than Seattle - two thirds the size. My guess is Las Vegas (40), who could fill stadiums with visitors who come to see a (nba) show. It would be interesting to see how a home team does with home visitors? Does that breed loyalty? Or do fans from cities without an nba team adopt Vegas as their own?

Anyway, I think we will finally see expansion. Whether it’s a smart move for the owners .. I don’t know .. but being smart hasn’t stopped them from doing some pretty dumb things in the past.

Tampa has a team, kind of. Orlando is about 60 minutes away, straight shot on I-4. So no team there, unless the Magic are moving out to the Gulf Coast.

Sorry your Wolves are the leading candidate for relocation.

[DoItALL9]

It's about whether the owners get enough revenue from a split to off-set what they gave up in perpetuity afterwards. It's pretty unlikely that the league is going to grow more as a whole due to expansion in a meaningful way.

Expansion is a longterm venture, both in slicing up the pie further, and growing that pie by adding bigger ovens. SEATAC is the 14th largest market in the US (Minneapolis is 15th, mr. process), and three times the size of markets like Memphis and New Orleans. If the NBA can’t make money getting back into Seattle, there is something wrong with the product as a whole.

If Seattle is a foregone conclusion, I wonder what the other market would be? There is only one bigger without a team - Tampa (11th). After that your next biggest is St Louis (20) but it’s much smaller than Seattle - two thirds the size. My guess is Las Vegas (40), who could fill stadiums with visitors who come to see a (nba) show. It would be interesting to see how a home team does with home visitors? Does that breed loyalty? Or do fans from cities without an nba team adopt Vegas as their own?

Anyway, I think we will finally see expansion. Whether it’s a smart move for the owners .. I don’t know .. but being smart hasn’t stopped them from doing some pretty dumb things in the past.

Tampa has a team, kind of. Orlando is about 60 minutes away, straight shot on I-4. So no team there, unless the Magic are moving out to the Gulf Coast.

Sorry your Wolves are the leading candidate for relocation.

I think New Orleans will be the leading candidate to relocate.

Thoughts on Louisville Kentucky as the 2nd expansion sight? I believe they would have three most rabid fans long-term.

The NBA could expand by only one team to lessen the BRI hit on TV revenue. No one is necessarily dying for a team elsewhere en masse in the USA.

The NBA should also take a strong look at Vancouver again to see if the situation has changed from 25 years ago. Also, they need to speak with the player's association + top college & high school players about the possiblity to learn their feelingsb on the city.

Sent from my LM-G710 using RealGM mobile app