Oklahoma City Sonics? NBA should just say no

SEATTLE -- The Bulls were back at work Sunday, holding a light practice in the NBA's most unique environment.

Seattle's Key Arena sits beneath the Space Needle, surrounded by museums, an amusement park and a tree-lined neighborhood. Look west down one of the streets and the calm waters of Elliott Bay are in sight, with mountains in the distance.

Sadly, the SuperSonics will go to court, the legal kind, in a few months trying to ensure that this is the Bulls' last visit to Seattle.

Owner Clay Bennett wants to move the team to his native Oklahoma City next season, while the city of Seattle is fighting to hold the Sonics to a lease that runs through 2010. The two sides are scheduled to meet in the courtroom June 16 to settle the issue.

At the same time, Bennett is endorsing a March 4 referendum in Oklahoma City that would increase the local sales tax to pay for a practice facility and upgrades to the Ford Center, where the Sonics hope to be playing by November.

Nothing against Oklahoma City, which did a wonderful job serving as temporary home of the New Orleans Hornets the last two years, but NBA Commissioner David Stern needs to put a stop to the Sonics' relocation plan.

There is no conceivable way the NBA would benefit from having the Sonics move from the nation's 14th-largest market to the 45th.

The Sonics sport a successful history and should always have a reliable fan base, since they were the area's first major-league team, starting play in 1967.

The issue here is the outdated stadium argument. Key Arena has few luxury suites and little room for the under-the-seats private clubs that have become popular around the NBA.

But of course, the Sonics can blame themselves for this dilemma. Key Arena went through an extensive renovation about 12 years ago, just before Seattle played the Bulls in the 1996 Finals. Why weren't more revenue-generating amenities included in the rebuilding plan?

In the meantime, Seattle spent hundred of millions to build new stadiums for the Seahawks and Mariners. The Sonics want a new arena to come their way, while the city points out it hasn't finished paying for the renovation yet.

Starbucks founder Howard Schultz removed himself from the equation in 2006 by selling the team to Bennett with full knowledge that the Sonics could end up in Oklahoma.

This would be a great time for Stern to end the tradition of sports franchises holding their cities hostage in order to get free stadiums, but he probably won't do anything to stop the process. The ability to threaten relocation is too lucrative for the owners.

In the meantime, the Hornets returned to New Orleans this season, but that city wasn't a strong candidate to host an NBA franchise even before Hurricane Katrina. It almost seems inevitable that if the Sonics move to Oklahoma City, the Hornets would try to find their way to Seattle.

So why not leave the Sonics where they are and keep Oklahoma City for the Hornets? Probably because it makes too much sense.

This soap opera took a comical turn recently when the Sonics filed court papers arguing that their departure from Oklahoma City would cause no economic hardship for Seattle and most residents wouldn't miss the team when it's gone.

According to the Seattle Times, the Sonics plan to produce a survey showing that 66 percent of Seattle residents say the team's departure would make no difference in their lives.

That's easy to say when the Sonics are 12-35 after giving away their two leading scorers last summer. Did anyone bother asking the same question in 1996?