Saveourbucks.com

[keefe]

A few thoughts:

1) while I rarely go west of 60th street, a static billboard on I-43 North seems short-sighted.  This is an increasingly west community.  The 5K on Clear Channel could get them nice electronic rotations at many different locations; 94 West, 894, 41/45 and more.  
2) this team is going nowhere.  Seattle had a deal and it was perfect with the Kings but the nba said no.  Why? Money.  An expansion fee to Seattle will yield owners a lot more than a relocation fee will.  Once the Bucks get their arena deal, the nba will award Seattle a team and each owner will walk away with at least 20 million dollars in their pocket.
3) in 2001 The Bucks had nba people calling their fans the best in the nba.  That didn't last long but it was there.  Adding Jabari to Giannis & Larry will be team on a collision with the World Championship.
4) hopefully The Senator suspends Larry for the season, citing conduct unbecoming of a Buck.  No reason to win another game.  Say what you will about our Dom Lobbing Ice Skater but he will play ball once he gets back.  Effort is the last thing this team needs right now.  

[Hards Alumni]

Nope.  He is exactly right.

In addition to what he said:
5) It is EXTREMELY lucrative to own an NBA team... did you see the financial move the NBA pulled when they sold the New Orleans Hornets?
6) If Seattle couldn't pull the Kings away from Sacramento, they sure can't pull a more financially sound team out of Milwaukee... and Seattle offered $625 Million for the Kings.
7) Winning solves everything (doesn't everyone around here say that?)

[mu03eng]

Nope.  He is exactly right.

In addition to what he said:
5) It is EXTREMELY lucrative to own an NBA team... did you see the financial move the NBA pulled when they sold the New Orleans Hornets?
6) If Seattle couldn't pull the Kings away from Sacramento, they sure can't pull a more financially sound team out of Milwaukee... and Seattle offered $625 Million for the Kings.
7) Winning solves everything (doesn't everyone around here say that?)

It is lucrative to be an owner, that's why they WON'T expand.  The vast majority of the revenue generation is either on paper(value of team) or from the media contracts.  Splitting a media contract 31 or 32 ways as opposed to 30 doesn't create additional value for an owner.  Additionally adding more franchises doesn't increase the paper value of a franchise, potentially lowers it(supply of teams for potential owners).

I don't think the Bucks move but there will be a team moving to Seattle WAY before a new team is formed for that need.

[GGGG]

A few thoughts:

 
2) this team is going nowhere.  Seattle had a deal and it was perfect with the Kings but the nba said no.  Why? Money.  An expansion fee to Seattle will yield owners a lot more than a relocation fee will.  Once the Bucks get their arena deal, the nba will award Seattle a team and each owner will walk away with at least 20 million dollars in their pocket.

Short term yes.  Long term you are dividing up television contracts with another share - and I don't think the marginal increase in those contracts will come close to making up for the deficit.

Here are the last times you have seen expansions in the four major sports:

NBA: 2004 (Bobcats)
NFL: 2002 (Texans)
NHL: 2000 (Wild and Blue Jackets)
MLB: 1998 (Dbacks and Rays)

As their television product has become more and more nationalized, owners have realized that increasing the number of teams actually hurts their bottom line...and waters down their product.  In fact, I think most leagues would rather contract than expand.

[The Lens]

Short term yes.  Long term you are dividing up television contracts with another share - and I don't think the marginal increase in those contracts will come close to making up for the deficit.

As their television product has become more and more nationalized, owners have realized that increasing the number of teams actually hurts their bottom line...and waters down their product.  In fact, I think most leagues would rather contract than expand.

Seattle is the #12 TV DMA in the US.  We're not talking about expanding into Kansas City.  Your point about dividing up revenues is well-taken but IMO, the market size of Seattle negates that concern.

[Spotcheck Billy]

I still have a few copies of the 45rpm single made by the Milwaukee Allstars "Let's Keep the Bucks in Milwaukee" from the mid 80's before the Pettit's made their generous donation to the city. Of course back then I actually cared about the Bucks future and went to alot of games when:

A. game tickets were cheap
B. the Bucks were winning the division regularly

[GGGG]

Seattle is the #12 TV DMA in the US.  We're not talking about expanding into Kansas City.  Your point about dividing up revenues is well-taken but IMO, the market size of Seattle negates that concern.

In the case of expansion, the question isn't just the size of the market.  The question is that for *national* television contracts, how much *additional* viewership will be gained in Seattle versus those who already watch the NBA despite no team located there right now?  My guess is that the slight marginal increase would not nearly translate into more money for other team owners since they are splitting the pot another way.

Now would they benefit from a team relocating from a market like Milwaukee to one in Seattle?  Yes, very likely they would.

[mu03eng]

In the case of expansion, the question isn't just the size of the market.  The question is that for *national* television contracts, how much *additional* viewership will be gained in Seattle versus those who already watch the NBA despite no team located there right now?  My guess is that the slight marginal increase would not nearly translate into more money for other team owners since they are splitting the pot another way.

Now would they benefit from a team relocating from a market like Milwaukee to one in Seattle?  Yes, very likely they would.

+1

[The Lens]

Annual NBA TV Rev: $930,000,000

Divided by 30 teams = $31,000,000
Divided by 31 teams = $30,000,000

Something tells me the owners will take the $20,000,000 upfront and hedge their bets they can increase the value to cover their 4% loss.

[GGGG]

Annual NBA TV Rev: $930,000,000

Divided by 30 teams = $31,000,000
Divided by 31 teams = $30,000,000

Something tells me the owners will take the $20,000,000 upfront and hedge their bets they can increase the value to cover their 4% loss.

Good info...thanks.

[mu03eng]

Annual NBA TV Rev: $930,000,000

Divided by 30 teams = $31,000,000
Divided by 31 teams = $30,000,000

Something tells me the owners will take the $20,000,000 upfront and hedge their bets they can increase the value to cover their 4% loss.

Except that's not the only decrease in revenue, the paper value potentially erodes as well.  Additionally, you have the watering down of talent(worse product) as well as increasing FA competition (contract cost escalation).

[mu03eng]

Annual NBA TV Rev: $930,000,000

Divided by 30 teams = $31,000,000
Divided by 31 teams = $30,000,000

Something tells me the owners will take the $20,000,000 upfront and hedge their bets they can increase the value to cover their 4% loss.

So the question is why haven't they pulled the trigger on an expansion? Based on that it should be a no brainer for them, why all the movement talk?  Yes, some is leverage by the NBA to drive stadium building for teams like the Bucks, but if they are willing to expand, that bluff only works so long.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Speaking as a Hartfrod Whaler fan, you just don't want to lose your team because may never see another one.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Unlikely to expand.  Just two years ago they were talking contraction. 

[The Lens]

Unlikely to expand.  Just two years ago they were talking contraction. 

Because they were at the bargaining table with their union.  NBA franchise fees are going through the roof, the sport is doing fine.  Contraction talk was a ploy.

[mu03eng]

Because they were at the bargaining table with their union.  NBA franchise fees are going through the roof, the sport is doing fine.  Contraction talk was a ploy.

All correct, but there is no reason to expand....it's not like opening new markets by moving into China.  Having a franchise in Seattle merely dilutes the other owners value without the equivalent increase in revenue.  It's not like ESPN is going to pay less because they don't own the Seattle market.

Plus the owners are incentivized to use the move threat to leverage new facilities from communities so they don't have to spend money on it

[MUBurrow]

Plus the owners are incentivized to use the move threat to leverage new facilities from communities so they don't have to spend money on it

This. Every league needs one city realistically pressing for a team. It's why there's no NFL team in LA and why Montreal is all of a sudden gaining traction for an MLB team again. The marginal benefit of upgrading markets with an expansion or move is weighed against the realistic viability of the next city waiting in the wings for a franchise. If MKE isn't going to build a new arena, the Bucks wont move to Seattle until another city is prepared to assume Seattle's spot as the next city in line for a team.

[77ncaachamps]

Did anyone else read the subject line as Sav(e)ourBucks as in "delectable deer recipes for the winter and beyond"?

[Skitch]

Billboard went up today on I-43

Got a story on Deadspin and Sporting News