PDA

View Full Version : What's wrong with Key Arena?



Zag 77
03-31-2012, 03:54 PM
I am not an NBA fan, but I was reading some comments about the loss of the Sonics on another thread.

What in the world is inadequate about Key Arena for NBA basketball? It went through a major remodel not that many years ago. It has plenty of seats for a city of Seattle's size. I have been there many times for the Battle in Seattle and it seems like a great place to play and watch a game.

Easy to get to. You can park almost anywhere Downtown and take the Monorail there. Frankly I recall lots of parking lots there as well.

So what in blazes is wrong with it as it sits? I don't see why the taxpayers needed to do anything, especially with a million other priorities.

Granted, I think NBA basketball is worthless, but if I were a Seattle resident I would have said "Don't let the door hit you on your way out."

04ZagFan
03-31-2012, 09:11 PM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003425388_sonics14m.html

Zag 77
03-31-2012, 10:24 PM
04, the article just points fingers as to the various politicians claimed to be to blame for "losing" the Sonics. It still does not explain whay there is a claim that Key Arena is inadequate other than to baldly claim that it is too small and other arenas are more lucrative.

That is no answer. Key Arena is about the right size for Seattle and they never filled it anyway. It is silly to spend a crapload of public money for a new arena when the remodeled Key Arena is only 18 years old.

04ZagFan
04-01-2012, 01:19 AM
Have you ever been to Key Arena? Now, have you been to any of the other NBA arenas?

Even more importantly, have you been to Safeco and Century Link?

Now tell me which is the worst?

Granted I've over simplified it a bit with my belief.. But I can't say I'd be thrilled as a Sonics owner to play in the worst arena in my city and in the league. Politics are always a factor.. But again, the arena was not up to par.

Other arenas were/are much more lucrative, 77. It's not necessarily about seating capacity as it is Luxury suites... And the actual size of the arena is about 1/2 the size of your typical NBA era..

It's a lot about the Seahawks and Mariners getting elite stadiums, while the most successful franchise got nothing. Luxury suites and the terms of the lease as well..

Well here is a link which explain it more.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2342493

Zag 77
04-01-2012, 02:43 PM
Sounds to me like the Sonic ownership was spoiled, jealous and impatient.

Screw em. Its just a game.

04ZagFan
04-01-2012, 07:22 PM
Sounds to me like the Sonic ownership was spoiled, jealous and impatient.

Screw em. Its just a game.

Probably true.

Seattle will get another NBA franchise. It's only a matter of time. It's just a shame they let one go that right now, is probably the best team in the NBA with an extremely bright future.

That must leave such a terrible taste in the mouths of Seattle fans... All that money spend for the Mariners and they are one of the worst franchises in the MLB, and the Seahawks aren't a lot better.

gu03alum
04-02-2012, 06:10 AM
That must leave such a terrible taste in the mouths of Seattle fans... All that money spend for the Mariners and they are one of the worst franchises in the MLB, and the Seahawks aren't a lot better.

You constantly talk out of your ass. The Mariners have been bad for the most part the last few years, but they were very good from 95 to 03. Safeco opened in 1999. They then got old and had bad management that replaced old players with more old and expensive players. Jack Z has been turning it around, but it takes time with the amount of destruction that Bavasi did. The Seahawks new stadium opened in 2004 and they went to a Superbowl in 2005. They have had decent teams since then. They are now a young up and coming team. They have one of the top defenses in the NFL. They have a good running game and a competent quarterback. They will be in contention for the playoffs again this year like they were last year and the year before. The Sonics were very bad when they left. The team was gutted and they were fortunate enough that it worked out.

Sports are cyclical. Me being upset that the Sonics are gone has nothing to do with how good or bad the Mariners, Seahawks, Sounders, Storm, etc. are.

To address the Key Arena question:

When the Key Arena was renovated in 1995 David Stern complimented the arena saying it was state of the art. There is video evidence of this within the Sonicsgate movie.

I have been there a number of times. I enjoyed my experience. It had really nice site lines in my opinion. I have been to many Wizards games in DC and the Verizon Center isn't any nicer in my opinion.

Eroop22
04-02-2012, 09:02 AM
The last time I went to a game at Key Arena was before the renovation so I probably shouldn't comment on this topic. But I always felt that Key Arena while it wasn't the best arena in the league it was probably far from the worst. David Stern just used it as cop out to try and save face when it was obvious that an owner who he essentially works for decided he wanted to relocate.

04ZagFan
04-02-2012, 04:23 PM
You constantly talk out of your ass. The Mariners have been bad for the most part the last few years, but they were very good from 95 to 03. Safeco opened in 1999. They then got old and had bad management that replaced old players with more old and expensive players. Jack Z has been turning it around, but it takes time with the amount of destruction that Bavasi did. The Seahawks new stadium opened in 2004 and they went to a Superbowl in 2005. They have had decent teams since then. They are now a young up and coming team. They have one of the top defenses in the NFL. They have a good running game and a competent quarterback. They will be in contention for the playoffs again this year like they were last year and the year before. The Sonics were very bad when they left. The team was gutted and they were fortunate enough that it worked out.

Sports are cyclical. Me being upset that the Sonics are gone has nothing to do with how good or bad the Mariners, Seahawks, Sounders, Storm, etc. are.

To address the Key Arena question:

When the Key Arena was renovated in 1995 David Stern complimented the arena saying it was state of the art. There is video evidence of this within the Sonicsgate movie.

I have been there a number of times. I enjoyed my experience. It had really nice site lines in my opinion. I have been to many Wizards games in DC and the Verizon Center isn't any nicer in my opinion.

HA.

You tell me I talk out of my ass, and then tell me the Mariners were good from 1995 to 2003. What did they win? Let me know when they win a championship. You know, like the Sonics did?

The Seahawks. Had a nice little run, but what did they win?

The Sonics won a championship. Neither of the other franchises did, and neither are close to winning now. The Thunder are the best team in the league and one of the youngest. Yeah, I'd say that makes Seattle fans pretty sick to their stomachs as they watch 54 year old Ichiro hit 3rd and back up QBs suit up for the Seahawks. If you think they are up and coming, well good for you, but I'm also willing to bet the farm neither franchise will sniff a title in the next decade.


As for your bit on Key Arena... I go to the Battle in Seattle there every year. It's a fine place to watch a game. Site lines are great.. Unfortunately, nice site lines aren't making the owners money. Luxury suites do though. It's not comparable to other NBA venues, which I think goes without saying. I've never watched a game in Washington DC, But I wouldn't bring up the Wizards franchise in ANY debate about why Seattle isn't that bad. The Wizards are the laughing stock of the league in more ways than one.

zag944
04-03-2012, 08:13 AM
The Key Arena isnt adequete by NBA standards. This much is pretty obvious. Its small, it's luxury seating isnt up to snuff, and it has a terrible lease agreement with Seattle Center (meaning a lot of money typically funnelled to the leauge doesnt go to the owners and NBA). A simplification but those are the basics. None of these things matter at all to a typical Seattle fan, but the typical Seattle fan was about the only party in the whole situation that didnt get what they wanted.

It was up to NBA standards when built in the mid 90s...even built to the NBA specs and requests (alledgedly in an effort to be good for NBA but unattractive to the NHL, a potential in-city competitor for sports fans...I find this a little bit ridiculous though personally). There's youtube clips of David Stern pontificating what a great arena it is early in its life.

Howard Schultz was a terrible owner who allowed the team to continue it's decline while raising prices every year, then he asked for a massive renovation of the arena we were (are?) still paying for in our taxes. His contributions to this would be minimal, but he would reap all of the benefits and probably raise our ticket prices even further.

The City of Seattle couldve held Bennett to his lease. Co-owner Aubrey Mclendon lost a massive share of his money just months after the team moved. It wouldve been a terrific shake down...them playing in front of an empty arena for two years hemoragging money while a Ballmer group was offering to buy back the team. Before that, the City couldve worked with the Seattle Center to help with the lease situation and maybe made things easier for Schultz.

So yeah, the arena that the City, NBA, and owners wanted wasnt good enough for any of them 10 years later while still being fine for fans. All those parties decided to slap the fans in the face and acted despicably.

zag944
04-03-2012, 08:46 AM
It's a lot about the Seahawks and Mariners getting elite stadiums, while the most successful franchise got nothing. Luxury suites and the terms of the lease as well..


The unforunate thing is, we did built a state of the art stadium for all three team. If memory serves me, the first seasons in each were 1996, 1999, and 2002.

The problem is that the NBA definition of state of the art changed drastically (considering what we have from 1996 and the amazing arena that the Pacers got in like 1999).

Taxpayers can only be asked to do so many solids for the sports teams, and they did one for each. I think one couldve been worked out anyway if there was some synergy between the involved parties. Unfortunately said parties were an elitist jerk of an owner, a ruthless dictator of an NBA commissioner, and a dumb mayor nieve to what could happen.

zag944
04-16-2012, 07:27 AM
The situation in Sacremento right now is a good example of the exercise in futility when trying to work on any reasonable terms with an NBA owner or David Stern once they draw a line in the sand.

What an awful situation. Hopefully one that yields a team for Seattle.

asoc
04-16-2012, 02:19 PM
The Sonics won a championship. Neither of the other franchises did, and neither are close to winning now. The Thunder are the best team in the league and one of the youngest. Yeah, I'd say that makes Seattle fans pretty sick to their stomachs as they watch 54 year old Ichiro hit 3rd and back up QBs suit up for the Seahawks. If you think they are up and coming, well good for you, but I'm also willing to bet the farm neither franchise will sniff a title in the next decade.

1917 Stanley Cup was won by the Seattle Metropolitans.

Mariners finished the 2001 season with 116 wins. Pretty freaking impressive.

Seattle Sounders have four league championships from their days in the USL/A-league

The Sounders have been among the best in MLS since joining the league. I believe they actually have the best record over the last 3 seasons.
The Sounders have won three consecutive US Open Cups.
Qualified for the CONCACAF Champions League group stage 3 consecutive years. Advancing out of the group stage in the most recent tournament. We shall see how they do in this years group stage, I bet they win their group.
Sounders have also led the league in attendance each year in MLS. In 2011 they averaged 38,496. This season they will average 40k+ with 17 regular season games. This actually puts them among the best attended teams in the world.

asoc
04-17-2012, 09:01 PM
That's great.... The Hockey franchise won a title when my great grandmother was growing up, and the other franchises have won some games. What's the point though? They let the franchise with the brightest future, and most successful past go.

If you're making the argument that the other franchises have done enough to ease the pain of the Sonics (now with one of the best teams in the NBA) leaving, ok, but I disagree.

I am saying there are things to be proud of in Seattle and Washington State professional sports other than the Sonics one championship.

I could easily say, Great, so the Sonics won a championship when I and most of my friends weren't even born yet. So what? Well, you were saying earlier that the Sonics were the most successful Seattle professional Sports franchise. Well, there was another team to win a major league championship. The Seahawks have been very successful off the field and had some good runs on the field. Mariners have done something only one other team has done in the history of baseball, win 116 games in a season. You can easily argue that is more impressive than winning the world series. Performing well consistently over the course of that many games is a better measure of success than getting hot at the right time and winning some games in the playoffs.

It sucks the Sonics were ripped away from the people of Seattle.

But to attack and try to diminish the history of other Seattle sports teams to try to prove a point isn't going to work.

cjm720
04-19-2012, 06:50 AM
Lots of things: smallest arena in the league, city gets all parking revenue, cell phones don't work inside (big deal for players) and probably others. The location's great but the arena doesn't work for the NBA model.

asoc
04-20-2012, 10:10 PM
I like SoDo quite a bit around Safeco and CLink. Would be great to add an arena that hosts the Sonics and an NHL team to the area.