I was thinking too much the other night (like I normally do)...
Anyone think Donald Sterling will move his team and they become the Seattle Clippers?!
At least Seattle basketball/sports fans would know they'd be watching a draft lottery team each and every year, to compliment the basement-quality MLB Mariners and the Seahawks which will probably fall to the NFL basement again one of these days as well.

Didn't I hear that part of the deal was that they would leave the name "Sonics" in Seattle?

That is correct. The staff and the players are moving to Oklahoma City while the Seattle Supersonics "brand" is left behind. This allows for the possibility of a Sonics 2.0 to return to Seattle, with a completely new cast of characters, should the NBA decide to expand or relocate another franchis to Seattle. But, before doing that, there's a litany of upgrades that must be done to Key Arena before the NBA will consider placing a new Sonics team in Seattle.

The city has the "rights" to the Sonics name but a new owner wouldn't be required to use it.

There are a number of teams that probably would consider Seattle as a possible new home, but the city and/or private industry must come up with either a new arena or major renovation to the existing Key Arena. (An arena, btw, that commish Stern called "state of the art" as recently as 1995.)

The Sonics will end up just like the Cleveland Browns. But it will take 10 years to get them back.

In polls I've seen conducted on the matter, most people in and around Seattle have little use for a NBA basketball team. Part of the deal is getting the Washington State Legislature to help finance a major remodel of Key Arena – to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Most people say no; they're more interested in transporation projects than financing a remodel of Key Arena.

Last legislative session, The University of Washington tried to get the Washington State Legislature to come up with a $150 million dollars to help finance its remodel of Husky Stadium. Not even the WA State of Representative Speaker, who resides in the district where the U is located, could convince members to support such a costly undertaking.

Transportation projects in Seattle? You mean like the $1.6 BILLION RTA project that we (I lived up there at the time) voted in back in 1996 that is just NOW getting fully underway? Transportation projects there are a joke. Throwing money into a pit.

As far as Donald Sterling moving the Clippers to Seattle, it won't happen. Sterling is one of the biggest tight-asses in the league, and while his teams are perennial doormats and sports-talk-radio fodder, he makes a tremendous profit being the second banana tenant in Staples Center, they sell out most all of their games, and they aren't moving.

KeyArena is a cesspool. It was the day it opened, it was outdated, too small, and not a long-term situation. One of the biggest mistakes Seattle did was to give the Sonics owner at the time, Barry Ackerley, control of the design of KeyArena. He INTENTIONALLY had it built small, to prevent NHL expansion. The end result is the smallest arena in the league, with no parking, no luxury suites, cramped seating, and a ridiculously stupid lease that he signed upon moving in.

I'm guessing that if the NBA comes back to Seattle, it'll be another existing team. Maybe Memphis, or New Orleans, two franchises that are not viable in their current cities. David Stern has stated repeatedly that expansion is not an option, and unless something is done with KeyArena Seattle won't get a team. It sounds like Seattle and a local group led by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer have committed to a public-private venture for quite a bit of the financing, now if the state gets on board with ideas perhaps similar to the funding of Safeco and Qwest (license plates, hotel/restaurant tax, user tax, etc.), it can be done.

The State of Washington will not do it -- and they've already said no. The Sonics wanted help to finance a facilty in Renton to the tune of $500 million dollars. Then the Huskies went hat in hand asking for $150 million dollars from the Washington State Legislature. I seriously doubt the Sonics could get any sort of public backing (unless Seattle and King County wants to put of between $200 and $300 million -- which I seriously doubt given the current state of fiancial affairs in Seattle and King County). Plus Washington State University raised almost $90 million dollars on its own to refurbish Martin Stadium in Pullman without asking for a dime. And with transportation projects galore that need financing in King County, the last thing they’re going to do is divert money for a sports franchise that has negligible support. The Alaska Way Viaduct needs to be replaced in a few years and that's going to cost at least a billion dollars, possibly more. Plus the 520 Floating Bridge replacement will cost an estimated $4 billion dollars. If Ballmer and comapany want to self fiance, I could see it. But not with help from the state of Washington.

I was just trying to get people thinking.

BTW, I've been to Seattle, they need transportation projects (especially public transit) in a huge way. The thing almost all the transit districts in Washington State cite are the $30 car tabs which started in either 1999 or 2000.

Also, it's sorta ironic that the place was built small to prevent NHL expansion, especially since Portland has the Rose Garden and even under brief outside ownership, Portland still doesn't have an NHL team (and we might lose the Winterhawks to Salem).

I haven't really followed basketball or sports of any kind in the last few years, but I think this means that Sacramento now has the smallest NBA arena, I want to say Arco Arena is 17,317. (I remember when everyone was whining that Portland was smallest, and the Memorial Coliseum capacity was 12,888!)

Newflyer and others here: I am not a big sports fan very limited knowledge fan but WTF is this about: and we might lose the Winterhawks to Salem? Unless Salem is considering building a new facility name one which would be a turnkey building for the Winterhawks organization to base out of?

I'm kinda laughing about the comment "deliberately built small". Key Arena was built in 1962, long before The Seattle Supersonics existed.

"they need transportation projects (especially public transit) in a huge way."

They needed huge transportation projects back in 1962. Seattle is never gonna be free of traffic woes.

Seattle has needed transportation projects for YEARS ... and they've voted many in. The problem is that the bureacratic red tape up there to get any of them done is insane.

As far as the Winterhawks, they haven't played in the Rose Garden for a couple years, and that franchise has been so poorly managed over the last few years that the Western Hockey League has threatened to step in and possibly take over ownership of the team. The Memorial Coliseum is woefully inadequate for darn near any sporting event anymore, and the ownership has stated that they have zero interest in playing any games in the Rose Garden.

"The problem is that the bureacratic red tape up there to get any of them done is insane."

Wait until the Interstate Bridge replacement debate gets well underway. I've shifted my position to no new bridge. $4 Billion could be spent on other cool projects instead. Clark county residents should live, work and play over on their side. This is the cheapest and greenest solution to the Interstate bridge debate.

Build the bridge and build it NOW!

And, if memory serves, the Memorial Coliseum held 12,666.

In fact, I think we need to put a toll on the current Interstate bridge for Oregon and Washington licensed vehicles NOW. All other states and PUC licensed trucks, including Oregon and Washington trucks, will not have a toll (we're trying to improve commerce here).

The idea here is to cut commuting to work. If you really want to commute long distances, you'll have to pay for it, but at least there will be less traffic and no expense to the rest of us for an unneeded new bridge.

Are tolls designed to reduce traffic or help pay for these projects? If they're designed to help offset the cost of these projects, then why not place a toll on the Sellwood Bridge? It’s going to cost a small fortune to finance that project. Any major road construction project should incorporate a toll. The money to finance these projects is drying up, so everyone who uses these roads, regardless of means, should be expected to pay.

What I'm concerned about paying the high costs of these projects. It's not like when the government built the interstate freeway system where costs were modest as compared to today. Gas taxes and the infusion of state and federal dollars seems meek compared to days of old. We need to seriously look at how we finance these projects. And as our population grows, traffic isn’t going to shrink – it’s going to grow.

"then why not place a toll on the Sellwood Bridge?"

At first glance it would seem to be an ideal bridge to toll, however, we're trying to encourage people to live near where they work thus a toll on the Sellwood bridge would be counterproductive.

A toll on the interstate bridge ought to be split 4 ways -- 1/4 to Clark co, 1/4 to Portland and a 1/4 each to Washington and Oregon state DOTs to improve local traffic, mass transit, bikes and existing infrastructure (like the Sellwood bridge.)

Besides, only ONE of the two interstate spans is in dire need of fixing. Perhaps decades from now, a low cost bridge building material/techniques may be developed.

I don't like tolls. They cost time, and they never go away. Well, almost never. Takes a long time.

Besides, look at all the roads on the east coast, now owned by greedy corporations, looking to make money on them for the next 99 years.

If these projects are worth it, then we can just pay for them, sans tolls.

With all due respect, anyone that thinks the I5 crossing does not need a new bridge, is on drugs. If we want our economy to expand, then we need to keep up with making sure goods and people can get to where they need to go. The fastest way to a depression is to support ideas like tolling the existing bridge and not doing anything about it. Waiting longer will increase costs for construction and will harm the local economy.

Missing_kskd:

If these projects are worth it, then we can just pay for them, sans tolls.

How do you suggest this? Gas taxes are drying up too.

The fastest way to a depression is to support ideas like tolling the existing bridge

I already said commerce doesn't get tolled. If one has a PUC licensed truck, no toll.

If the Clark co folks don't want the jobs in Portland, they'll get snapped up by Oregonians, and vise versa.

Keep in mind there is a honking huge and relatively new bridge 5 miles to the East of the interstate bridge. We're not in dire straits. We spent our billions in Iraq, so everybody is gonna have to hurt a bit.

As for the Sellwood Bridge -- it's going to cost $300 million to replace. Tolls are justified, given this price tag (which is a bit dated). The county and state doesn't have the kind of money they did in the past to embark on such projects. But if you're going to use them, then you need to pay for them -- and tolling should be front and center in the debate. To me, it’s more about taking financial responsibility than using it as a social engineering tool.