Seattle SuperSonics Thread

[checks grossman]

Don't do it Pabs 

 

[elpablo21]

Forget ya'll 

 

[a55a5in11]

I wonder who's hiding under that sn

Probably lightweight champion or whatever lmao

I was thinking him or niketalker23.
What's if it's rck? Mind blown

 

[certifiedsw]

Don't do it Pabs 

 

[Deleted member 38182]

definitely me 

what if it was one you Seattle posters 

 

[a55a5in11]

definitely me 

what if it was one you Seattle posters 

paging meth for an IP check

 

[lightweight champion]

definitely me 

what if it was one you Seattle posters 

Thanks for biting the bullet

 

[thedeek]

The troll hates Rose too

 

[dakid23]

Durant to Sea '16!

 

[lo86]

When it rains it poors!

 

[Sinner]

Don't do it Pabs 

 I'm so disappointed in you, Pabs...

You seem like such a swell guy here on NT too. 

 

[atyung22]

Any other ideas of a team that could possibly move to Seattle in the future other than SAC? I heard rumors of maybe the Bucks. We need a damn team back in the 206. 

 

[bigmike23]

So the NBA offered to pay the Hansen group back the 30 million and they said no?

 

[Deleted member 38182]

^according to Chris Mannix, yes

 

[elpablo21]

Anyone have an idea why they would do that?

 

[dmbrhs]

Anyone have an idea why they would do that?

Why the NBA would offer it? Or why Hansen would decline it?

 

[a55a5in11]

Letting them know money ain't nothing to them. They the og get money boyz

 

[elpablo21]

Anyone have an idea why they would do that?

Why the NBA would offer it? Or why Hansen would decline it?

Why decline it

I get it's chump change to them but is there any underlying incentive with the gesture?

 

[a55a5in11]

Anyone have an idea why they would do that?

Why the NBA would offer it? Or why Hansen would decline it?

Why decline it

I get it's chump change to them but is there any underlying incentive with the gesture?

I'm sure they are just trying to hint to the other owners that they aren't afraid to risk, spend, and lose money to get what they want

 

[elpablo21]

Anyone have an idea why they would do that?

Why the NBA would offer it? Or why Hansen would decline it?

Why decline it

I get it's chump change to them but is there any underlying incentive with the gesture?

I'm sure they are just trying to hint to the other owners that they aren't afraid to risk, spend, and lose money to get what they want

I can dig that approach

 

[crcballer55]

I'm thinking it's a down payment to the NBA for a future team, or an IOU the next time they come to the table. The next time a team is available, or expansion happens, they've already put down the money to the NBA and can say they willingly turned down getting that back. Or maybe they're throwing money into the pot when an ownership group needs a loan. They'll get interest on that $30MM.

 

[Sinner]

Anyone have an idea why they would do that?

Why the NBA would offer it? Or why Hansen would decline it?

Why decline it

I get it's chump change to them but is there any underlying incentive with the gesture?

I think it's just to let the other owners know that "thanks, we appreciate the gesture, but we're ok".  

Chris is a businessman.  This was non-refundable and he knew there was always going to be a chance that the deal wouldn't go through.  He knew the risks.  He was just being professional about it. 

 

[jsnazz13]

Phil actually confirming he was in talks with Mr. Hansen.

http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/pages/jasonpucketpage.html

 

[dmbrhs]

Stern still holding grudges against Seattle, and wanted to teach them a lesson again. The NBA is never coming back to Seattle. Hansen can't finance an arena to the NBA's liking, while also being I-91 compliant. Hope everyone is happy.

http://sulia.com/channel/basketball/f/059d38b5-8cfe-42da-b02d-f58824e5a6ac/?source=twitter

How does keeping the Kings in Sacramento benefit the other 29 owners? That's the question I couldn't answer until a league source provided one Monday: the $250 million worth of public funding for the arena. Yes, mayor Kevin Johnson gathering a consortium of investors -- a number that apparently approaches nearly 50, I'm told -- and commissioner David Stern determined to simultaneously do Johnson a solid and slap Seattle for its handling of the Sonics moving to Oklahoma City were important parts of the equation, and Lord knows Sacramentans inherently deserve good fortune for their salt-of-the-earthiness and generally wholesome dispositions. But NBA owners always have, and always will, favor what best serves them in their various universes. That was the perplexing part -- by refusing a completely acceptable deal already struck by the Maloofs, weren't they setting a precedent that allows the league to dictate to whom they can sell their franchise? Well, they got around that by presenting it as if they were shooting down the "relocation" of the franchise, not the actual sale. So why would a partially publicly-financed arena be more attractive than the privately-financed one the Seattle group was offering? Because owners looking to build a new arena in the future with help from public funding would face the prospect of having the Seattle example thrown in their faces. (Matt Yglesias, an economics writer for Slate, was the first to note this. Some have suggested the Seattle plan included public funding as well; the difference is that the Seattle amount was considerably less and had a clear and easy means of repaying the debt in full while the Sacramento figure was the lion's share and means of repayment remains far sketchier.) In any case, now, with the Sacramento example winning, an owner can say, "Hey, the state of California and the city of Sacramento are both cash-strapped and yet they found a way to do their part!" It wasn't the only factor but "it was a big one," the source said.

 

[Deleted member 38182]

I see Sulia..... I'm guessing Bucher?

Also I thought I-91 was a nonissue?