Would It Be Smart To Move The Clippers To Seattle?

[LakerLegend]

There's 20 million people in the LA area, it's simple economics as to why there's two teams.

[Cactus Jack]

and change their name to the supersonics.

Clippers will always be overlooked in LA Cause of the lakers so it would be best just to move them to Seattle(a great nba town) and rebrand them to the supersonics. I mean this works for everyone Seattle gets a team back and clippers get out of the lakers shadow.

Cactus Jack approves this message

No comment.

[Cactus Jack]

Sure. After all the Sonics fans that have given me crap for the last 10 years, I'd love nothing more than for them to "steal" a franchise from another city.

Your right. I'd hate to be hated like that.

After the Kings deal, I'm 100% Pro-Expansion.

[TheNewEra]

Prob doesn't make sense for the Clips because the LA location makes them attractive to free agents. Seattle is a great NBA town as you say but star players aren't exactly trying to live there. Outside of LA the Clips become even less relevant imo.

Have we ever seen the Clippers sign a major free agent? I guess Baron Davis. Anyone else?

Chris Paul first deal after being traded here resigned and Blake Griffin just did. How about your team

[og15]

Prob doesn't make sense for the Clips because the LA location makes them attractive to free agents. Seattle is a great NBA town as you say but star players aren't exactly trying to live there. Outside of LA the Clips become even less relevant imo.

Have we ever seen the Clippers sign a major free agent? I guess Baron Davis. Anyone else?

Ballmer became the owner how many seasons ago? Before that, Sterling wasn't generally interested in paying money for teams, but in the short time that he was, Chris Paul agreed to extend his contract and be traded there, then re-signed with the team as a FA, DJ had a fun episode and then stayed with the team as a FA, and Blake did the same last season before he was traded. Clippers haven't had cap space to sign any big free agents in that time, the one time they could have possibly signed a big FA was the 2016 off-season if they made some space clearing moves, and they were one of the few teams to get a meeting with Durant.

Location is definitely a big factor in drawing FA's, but being a good team and having players that other guys want to play with also helps.

[swyftdahoe]

Considering Ballmer's a Microsoft guy, it seems like a no-brainer to me. I'd love that move. The Clippers go from being a overshadowed second child to a returning prodigal son.

[OkcSinceSGA]

From the standpoint of a fan yes. From the standpoint of business and longevity nope. On a good note the Clippers made progress last week on the Inglewood stadium. Now they just need to re-brand. Their last re-brand was terribly mediocre. Go with a new name/theme, or give them back a nautical logo.

The Clippers will also attract way more talent in LA than moving up to Seattle in free agency IMO. People love to bash the Clippers but in the CP3/Griffin era far more often than not, players chose the Clippers when it came down to choosing between other teams. TONS of role players took paycuts to do so, similar to how they did with Miami and now GS. I believe in Ballmer+West (he's a 6 million dollar a year adviser who has HUGE pull, such as convincing them to pull trigger on Griffin trade) to continue rebuilding this squad for the future.

[OkcSinceSGA]

Prob doesn't make sense for the Clips because the LA location makes them attractive to free agents. Seattle is a great NBA town as you say but star players aren't exactly trying to live there. Outside of LA the Clips become even less relevant imo.

Have we ever seen the Clippers sign a major free agent? I guess Baron Davis. Anyone else?

Ballmer became the owner how many seasons ago? Before that, Sterling wasn't generally interested in paying money for teams, but in the short time that he was, Chris Paul agreed to extend his contract and be traded there, then re-signed with the team as a FA, DJ had a fun episode and then stayed with the team as a FA, and Blake did the same last season before he was traded. Clippers haven't had cap space to sign any big free agents in that time, the one time they could have possibly signed a big FA was the 2016 off-season if they made some space clearing moves, and they were one of the few teams to get a meeting with Durant.

Location is definitely a big factor in drawing FA's, but being a good team and having players that other guys want to play with also helps.

"major" is a dumb criteria anyway. They have been capped out financially the entire CP3 era. They had no room for "major" signings. What they did do though was consistently remain a huge draw for role players, who usually chose the Clippers over other teams. They got at least 70% of the players they wanted that were deciding between them and other teams in buyout's, free agency etc. I feel like in that aspect the CP3 era was extremely successful. Too bad the talent they went for wasn't exactly ideal fit wise.

[draftnightsuit]

The Clippers never belonged in LA to begin with. They should’ve stayed in San Diego but Sterling was a greedy POS. Same thing with the Chargers moving to LA.

The Clippers should either move to Seattle or move back to San Diego but it’s too financially lucrative to stay in LA.

[Bergmaniac]

The Clippers would be crazy to move away from LA, even with the Lakers' presence it's much better financially for them to be there than anywhere else.

[Effigy]

Prob doesn't make sense for the Clips because the LA location makes them attractive to free agents. Seattle is a great NBA town as you say but star players aren't exactly trying to live there. Outside of LA the Clips become even less relevant imo.

Have we ever seen the Clippers sign a major free agent? I guess Baron Davis. Anyone else?

Chris Paul first deal after being traded here resigned and Blake Griffin just did. How about your team

Wait, you are counting Chris Paul? The guy who left you last year for Houston and forced you to trade him or he would have walked? You’re counting that??!!!! well shoot then we resigned Aldridge too! (The first time)

We resigned Dame and CJ. Lamarcus left us, Elton Brand and Chris Paul And Lamar Odom left you.

But obviously I meant free agents, not just your own players.

And you are in a sad state of affairs if a team in LA can’t outdraw a team in Portland. You should set your sights a bit higher. So maybe just talk about your team without dragging other fans’ teams in for an unnecessary tangent?

[Bobbymcgee]

Already said but Ballmer did not pay 2 billion dollars for an L.A. franchise to move them out of L.A.

And, Ballmer is moving forward with building a new arena in Inglewood. Not too far from the new football stadium being built for the Rams and Chargers.

So, no.

[Sofia]

and change their name to the supersonics.

Hornets will always be overlooked in NC Cause of the college ball so it would be best just to move them to Seattle(a great nba town) and rebrand them to the supersonics. I mean this works for everyone Seattle gets a team back and Hornets get out of the college ball shadow.

[VanWest82]

As a fan it sounds great, but it would be a very dumb business move by Ballmer. Even with them playing 2nd fiddle to the Lakers, the value of the team would drop taking it from LA to Seattle, just getting into a meeting with big time free agents would be harder as well. Then add in the fact that the rumors of them getting their own arena in Inglewood, just makes no sense for them business wise. But ya as a fan I think it makes the most sense.

I'm not sure the financials are that straight forward. LA is saturated with sports now that NFL has come. Clippers are like the 10th sports story behind Lakers, Dodgers, Rams, Angels, UCLA, USC, Warriors (because there are so many transplants and everyone's a bandwagon fan), Chargers,... Kings, and then maybe the Clippers.

In Seattle, there would at least be a passionate fan base with a real history to build on in the 15th largest US market. I suspect the real estate side to the deal is probably better in LA (maybe even substantially better) but I don't believe he'd be more profitable there year to year on the basketball side (based on attendance an viewership $$), and discounted cash flow has to be at least part of any valuation.

Edit: looks like Forbes had them 9th in revenue and 18th in EBITDA in 16/17. It will be interesting to see what that looks like next year when they've had a full year without Blake and CP3.

I'm sure he won't move because Silver probably stipulated they stay when Ballmer bought them. But I could see a Detroit type situation in Ballmer's new arena if they don't find another star.

[KuruptedCav]

For fans, probably. For the league, players, and owners, absolutely not.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[nomansland]

It would immediately drop the value of the franchise by 20-30%. No way Ballmer's going to take that kind of loss.

[Duke4life831]

As a fan it sounds great, but it would be a very dumb business move by Ballmer. Even with them playing 2nd fiddle to the Lakers, the value of the team would drop taking it from LA to Seattle, just getting into a meeting with big time free agents would be harder as well. Then add in the fact that the rumors of them getting their own arena in Inglewood, just makes no sense for them business wise. But ya as a fan I think it makes the most sense.

I actually disagree with this. LA is saturated with sports now that NFL has come. Clippers are like the 10th sports story behind Lakers, Dodgers, Rams, Angels, UCLA, USC, Warriors (because there are so many transplants and everyone's a bandwagon fan), Chargers,... beach volleyball, and then maybe the Clippers.

In Seattle, there would at least be a passionate fan base with a real history to build on in the 15th largest US market. I suspect the real estate side to the deal is probably better in LA (maybe even substantially better) but I don't believe he'd be more profitable there year to year on the basketball side (based on attendance an viewership $$), and discounted cash flow has to be at least part of any valuation.

I'm sure he won't move because Silver probably stipulated they stay when Ballmer bought them.

Even with all of that, the value of the franchise would drop moving from LA to Seattle. Clippers also had no problem selling out games when they were competitive, 2012-2017 Clipps ended the season with 100% sell outs. So even if its over saturated they still sell out, have LA marketing and attention (local and national), again being a team in LA gives them a better chance to get a meeting with a FA than if they were in Seattle, and again just being in LA ups the overall value of the team.

[pipfan]

makes perfect sense, but won't happen for $

[Kurosawa0]

Send the Pelicans. Should've been the Kings a few years back.

[Mr. E]

No.

The LA market can more than handle one team. You’d be asking Ballmer to seriously downgrade in market size & earning potential while having to deal with what sounds like a less than ideal situation on a local politics front.

Ballmer didn’t fork up $2B to leave the Los Angeles area.