The Seattle Supersonics to this day remain beloved by NBA casuals and loyalists alike, so when Clay Bennett purchased the Sonics only to move them away a year into his ownership to his home town in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the basketball world felt Seattle's pain and sense of betrayal, even going as far to call the move an "inside job." Seattle's only hope to reclaim a basketball city would be to take an existing NBA team and call it theirs. First it was the Sacramento Kings, Chris Hansen leading the charge. But Vivek Ranadive stepped in, and with the assistance of Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, the Kings were granted a stay in place by a board governors vote of 22-8, allowing Ranadive to buy the Kings off the hands of the Maloof family.
In 2014, an audio recording containing racist comments by disgraced owner Donald Sterling rocked the sports nation and hurting the Clipper's trust with the front office. In danger of a boycott and/or a tank job to the Warriors in the first round of the playoffs, NBA commissioner Adam Silver banished Sterling from the league for life and forced a sale of the team. Steve Ballmer would buy the Clippers for a then-record $2 billion from the Sterling family.
But there was a stipulation in the sale:
a no-relocation clause to prevent Clippers from moving out of L.A. At the very least, history wouldn't repeat itself. But even today,
the Clippers are still a target, Seattle's.
I can list a multitude of reasons why the Clippers and Seattle sound like the perfect marriage:
1.
They've been losers ever since their inception. Their record is currently 1562-2326, regular and playoff games combined. They've never gotten out of the 2nd round. Bad luck has always come to then when they're one move away from finally shedding the "loser" label.
2.
They have the most injured players of any team in NBA history, many of which freak-related. See Bill Walton, Norm Nixon, Shaun Livingston, Blake Griffin.
3.
Clippers have always been in the news for all the wrong reasons, most of which to do with Sterling. The most recent example, the firing of Bruce Bowen, is being analyzed as a desperate move to acquire superstar Kawhi Leonard. The consensus of the team's state of affairs is to tank and suck until you get a no. 1 pick, a practice made famous by the Philadelphia 76ers which Steve Ballmer has taken shots at on Friday.
4.
Donald Sterling himself, who purposely used the team's resources to protect his wealth (and his friends).
He only became an NBA member because he helped Dr. Jerry Buss in 1979 with a $2.7 billion loan that would be used to buy the Lakers from Jack Kent Cooke. You could make an indirect argument that Sterling helped the Lakers to win championships, even though the sentence as a whole sounds like a non-sequitur.
5.
Clippers only became relevant by way of a commissioner veto. Everything the Clippers did by themselves always ended up going wrong. When David Stern vetoed a trade that would have seen Chris Paul on the Lakers, the Clippers acquisition of Chris Paul was perceived as a personal gift. Helping the Clippers reach real relevancy may have been his last act as commissioner prior to his successor Adam Silver taking over in 2014.
6.
Lakers exceptionalism. Most of the relocation talks involving the Clippers are rooted in the Lakers being the first to arrive in Los Angeles and establishing a name for itself. The Lakers made the NBA relevant with their ties to Hollywood and the entertainment industry, and with the help of their arch nemesis Boston Celtics, saved the league from bankruptcy with the Larry Bird-Magic Johnson Finals rivalry. To think the Clippers could ever contribute to the good of the NBA was ludicrous at best, for they have always been seen as the opposite example of how to run a franchise. It's less to do with the fear of Clippers usurping Los Angeles from Lakers, and more to do with Clippers making a laughingstock out of a city the Lakers helped establish with its championships and winning legacy just by being there.
If the Clippers do become the candidate to get relocated, I ask you,
what do you get out of this. You're getting a historically losing team with a dysfunctional dichotomy. But worst of all, you're helping Clay Bennett absolve himself of any wrongdoing in the Sonics robbery, and in the process, making the Clippers the scapegoat. Now it will sound like "The Clippers are the reason why Seattle lost its team." Even though the Clippers had nothing to do with the robbery directly, it only adds fuel to their putrid reputation, cement it even.
Why are the Clippers the target for relocation, particularly Seattle? What is it about this franchise that leads you to believe the NBA is better off without them? Do you think Seattle can save the Clippers, or are they just a token that can be exchanged to bring back the Sonics?
Here's what I'm trying to say: Seattle got robbed, they deserve to have an NBA team back. But the fact that the Clippers have always been front and center makes me believe the league has a hidden agenda.