SEATTLE — Anyone who's been on the wrong side of a breakup knows there are generally two ways to handle it.
The first is to obsess — follow your ex's every move and let incessant thoughts of a reunion turn your mind into mush. The second? Put him or her out of sight and out of mind and focus on everything else.
Doing the latter doesn't mean you might not get back together one day. Doesn't mean that such a reconciliation won't overwhelm you with joy, either. But you have to get to a point where that second crack at the relationship is a bonus. Sonics fans should heed such advice.
For 17 years, a substantial number of Seattleites have been aching for the day that their departed NBA franchise returns. And the basketball gods holding the cat string have been masterful with their teasing. There was a serious attempt to move the Sacramento Kings to the Emerald City in 2013, but the league owners voted the relocation down 22-8. Then came the arena wars in the ensuing years, when NBA-first hedge fund manager Chris Hansen battled NHL-first businessman Tim Leiweke over the site for a new (or renovated) venue — with Leiweke's Oak View Group winning and constructing Climate Pledge Arena.
But over the past several years — with Climate Pledge showcasing itself as a state-of-the-art setting and the Kraken instantly selling out their season tickets — the narrative surrounding a Sonics return has seemed to evolve from possible to probable to damn near inevitable.
Do you still feel that way now, though? After all, the latest news on league expansion packed all the punch of Screech vs. Horshack. As Seattle Times sportswriter Tim Booth wrote from the Board of Governors meeting in Las Vegas Tuesday, NBA commissioner Adam Silver said a couple of committees were authorized to start an in-depth analysis with no timeline set on when or if the Board of Governors would proceed."
A couple of committees?
For years, Silver had been saying that the league would turn its attention toward expansion after the new media rights deal was collectively bargained. Or that adding teams would be prioritized after the sale of various franchises. The carrot has been dangling perpetually for Seattle hoops fans, but after more than a decade and a half, nothing has seemed to stick.
For one, there isn't any pressing need for the owners to expand and split their revenue with two more teams. Some of these guys might be charitable, but they are businessmen before they are altruists. The Celtics just sold for over $6 billion and the Lakers for $10 billion. Granted, these are the two most iconic teams in the league, but these valuations speak to something larger: Owners are the furthest thing from broke — so why fix it?
Second, the new priority for the NBA appears to be establishing a footprint in Europe. The Paris Olympics — which featured an instant classic between the USA and Serbia in the men's semis and an equally epic gold medal game between the U.S. and France — was a roundball bonanza. And from Nikola Jokic to Giannis Antetokounmpo to Luka Doncic, the continent is teeming with some of the best basketball talent in the world. Focusing on branding there will supersede expansion.
Third, back to the Celtics and Lakers … damn. $6.1 billion for Boston? $10 billion for L.A.? Superficially, this might make buying a team tempting for a prospective owner looking to invest in an increasingly appreciating asset. In reality, these valuations might make expansion fees so expensive that no interested ownership groups can make it happen.
Keep an eye out for how much the Portland Trail Blazers sell for. It won't be in the Celtics or Lakers range, but if a small-market organization can net, say … $5 billion? Then $5 billion (or $6 billion or $7 billion) may be the bare minimum for an expansion fee. The current owners' argument is that this will pay off two or threefold down the line. But even if there is a group that can come up with that kind of initial dough, there is no guarantee valuations will continue to increase like this. In short: It would be an extremely costly, extremely risky investment.
When strangers find out I'm a sportswriter, the most frequent question they ask me (next to "do you get to talk to the players?") is, "When are the Sonics coming back?" My answer for the past decade has been, "I have no idea. That's still true today. I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the next five years, nor would I be shocked if it took 30.
I think the attitude now, though, is to not worry about it. Enjoy a return if it happens — enjoy everything else in the meantime.
____
© 2025 The Seattle Times. Visit www.seattletimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
