One of the persistent themes in the ever-non-evolving Portland Trail Blazers arena saga has been the question of what new team owner Tom Dundon really wants. Oh, he’s made clear enough what he’s asking for: $600 million in taxpayer money to spend on upgrading his 31-year-old arena, in exchange for which he’ll keep paying (some) taxes. But does he really want Portland officials to give in and cut him a check? Or is his secret plan to burn enough bridges in Portland that he can pick up the team and move it elsewhere?
This has been Oregonian Bill Oram’s theory for months now, going back to a February column where he wrote of “the overleveraged incoming owner who knows his new team’s greatest value lies in his ability to move it,” all as part of a plea for Oregon legislators to open their wallets, and fast, to head off such a dire outcome. But this week Oram was joined by former Oregonian columnist John Canzano, an opponent of the $600 million arena spending plan, who wrote in his (paywalled right after this point) Substack that “well-placed sources tell me they’re increasingly skeptical about Dundon’s motivations. He continues to appear disinterested, they say, in negotiating.”
As I’ve written here previously, figuring out whether a team owner is really looking for an excuse to move or is just using one of the oldest tricks in the playbook to create leverage is no easy task: They look pretty much the same from the outside, and one of the prerogatives of being a monopolist is that you don’t have to decide if your threat is a bluff or not until you see how well it works to shake loose public money. Some sports teams do move, absolutely; the vast majority of those that threaten to don’t, though, with some setting deadline after deadline until somebody finally takes their threat seriously. And as economist J.C. Bradbury noted in his presentation to last year’s sports economics conference, there really aren’t that many open sports markets that would be upgrades on current ones. (Bradbury will likely revisit this topic in today’s 5 pm Pacific webinar with fellow economist Victor Matherson, hosted by two Portland city councilmembers.) Yet even when this is the case, and when none of the smaller cities available are offering much in the way of venue funding to boot, team owners are still quick to suggest that they have one foot out the door.
So did Tom Dundon really buy the Blazers just to move them, or does he just believe in never giving an inch in negotiations? Another way of asking the same question: Is Tom Dundon playing 4D chess, or is he just an asshole? The answer, as always with billionaires who got their starts as used car salesmen, is always: It can be both! Presumably he’ll go with whatever makes him the most money, but billionaires can do things for dumb reasons just like other people, so maybe not. Either way, it’s Portland officials’ job to get the best deal for its constituents, and sometimes that means not giving in and repeating, “I will answer you when you stop yelling.”
This is where I point out (again) that no one-horse sports town has lost its lone “major” franchise since a trio of NHL cities lost theirs in the mid-90’s, and they were all significantly smaller markets than Portland.
Just because several sportswriters whose livelihoods largely depend on the continued presence of major pro sports in their city are writing articles out of fear of losing that team doesn’t at all mean that the team is actually on the way out. It usually just means they’re deathly afraid of losing their outsized voice in a comparatively small sound room.
That’s true, but any trend that can end will end eventually.
It could also be argued – sorta – that Oakland is an example of a one-horse town that watched the last horse leave when the A’s left. It’s not quite the same because the market still has lots of teams, including the Warriors who just moved across the bridge, but psychologically, Oaklandians (Oaklanders?) talk like the A’s departure was the end of Oakland as a major league city.
It’s not entirely comparable. I’m not sure there was any price Oakland could have realistically paid that would have kept the A’s. It appears there is a price, albeit an extortionate one, that Portland can pay to keep the Blazers.
“It appears there is a price, albeit an extortionate one, that Portland can pay to keep the Blazers.” Unfortunately, that may not be true. Dundon, so far, has appeared unwilling to engage in negotiations and has been remarkably non-responsive to the City’s proposed terms, while hinting that, maybe, just maybe, a brand new arena is what he really needs. Once again, is that a leverage play or is he reserving an impossible demand as part of his exit strategy?
An exit strategy to where? There’s nowhere he can realistically take the franchise, even in a scenario where he purposely runs down the lease, that would lead to the type of valuation jump that would make the relocation worthwhile. This isn’t a Clay Bennett situation where it seemed obvious from the start that he bought the franchise for the sole purpose of moving it.
With Vegas and Seattle out of the question — with only the former being an even remotely realistic scenario — the only places he could take them to would be similar-sized markets with at least two “major” sports franchises… or Memphis/NOLA-sized markets that have no “major” teams but would need to punch well above its weight at things like corporate support to even have a fighter’s chance at being viable.
These types of plays are mostly about the owners thinking that the local governments are run by idiots, and that the teams themselves are cheered on and supported by even bigger rubes. You have to say, though, that the owners have been right far more often than not.
I mean, Dundon could be really stupid. Or so stubborn that if he doesn’t get everything he wants on a silver platter, he’ll cut off his nose to spite his face.
Not all billionaires are John Fisher, though, we’d probably have won the class war by now if they were.
I would lean far more toward “stubborn” than “stupid” when it comes to billionaires in general — if these people could try to buy anything with their money and power, it would be even more money and power.
Could he get the other owners to sign off on a relocation to, I dunno, Louisville or Richmond or Norfolk if he were to try and pull that off — especially if he’s the newest member of the clique with OG’s who have been in it for some 20, 30, or 40 years? Possibly. But even OKC had a previous track record as a temporary host city when the NBA approved the Sonics move. There’s no real history (yet) behind any of these other places that could theoretically open up.
“even in a scenario where he purposely runs down the lease”
IMO that seems to be Dumdum’s play here: Run the lease down to a year or two remaining, and sit back and let other cities or states bid up the amount of money they will offer toward a brand new arena.
Then even if there is no too-good-to-pass-up offer, he can sell for more than he paid to buy the team.
Isn’t that effectively what the previous Sacramento Kings owners did?
Oakland was only a one-horse town for several years, and the fans/locals were still in the grieving process from losing their other teams when the last one skipped town.
By contrast, much of Portland’s sports identity is based on the fact that the Blazers have enjoyed “only child” status there for generations (unless we’re counting MLS, which, ehhh).
Totally different scenarios. Even with the loss of two teams from the Bay Area, it’s still represented across all four “major” sports leagues. There would be no saving face if a city that has had only one of those teams forever one day found itself having none — which is why all of them has gone to incredible, oftentimes reckless lengths to avoid becoming the next Hartford or Quebec City.
“There would be no saving face if a city that has had only one of those teams forever one day found itself having none…”
Oh, good, the old “if we lose our team(s) we’ll become a second-class city!” argument.
Cities don’t become big and “first class” because they have teams in all four major sports leagues, they have those teams because they’re big cities.
Portland notably turned down getting an NFL team in around 1970 because it would have required building a stadium. It still manages to be at or near the top of the “most livable city” rankings year after year. (And to be nationally known, if only thanks to Fred Armisen and Carrie Brownstein.)
What, if any, evidence shows that people choose to live or not live in a city based on the presence of major sports franchises?
This “world class city” thing smells like another lie perpetuated by the same sort of self-proclaimed “storytellers” who preach about the importance of authenticity in branding with a straight face.
Portland doesn’t have to believe it if it just chooses not to.
If Sacratomato didn’t move I don’t see Portland with a long history and NBA title moving from the NW which already hamstrung itself losing the Sonics and Grizzlies.
Just don’t see it, NBA is going to expand to Seattle just to lose Portland? Thats self defeating and besides what market is there unless San Diego magically opens.
If the NBA did not want to risk the Blazers leaving Portland, it would not have let Dundon buy the team. There was another bid from genuinely local investors. But they didn’t want to tell the Allens to take a lower bid, because they want to maintain owner sovereignty as much as possible.
Besides, the NBA cannot control where it has teams the way so many people imagine it does. People seem to imagine the commissioner has a giant map and moves pieces around like in World War II movies, but that is not how it works.
Of course, there are people in the league and among the owners who think about their overall “footprint” because the TV people do, and so there are markets they care about more than others. But they cannot just will a team into (or out of) existence. In every market, they need an owner they can work with and a favorable arena deal.
And, whatever they do, they want to ensure that franchise values keep going up. That’s the number one priority.
The NBA is aiming for revenue growth, but smaller markets with limited corporate investment make that a challenge. The NFL is dominating the TV market. Meanwhile, MLB sees stronger earnings from cities without the NBA like Seattle, St. Louis, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and soon Las Vegas.
The MLB will probably make it to Nashville before the NBA. For the NBA, the question seems to be whether revenue can keep growing as the sole team in a smaller, less corporate city or if it’s better to compete in wealthier cities with two or more major teams.
“The Major League Baseball?”
Yes, but not to be mistaken for AAA, AA, Single-A baseball, or Japanese baseball (NPB).
No, I mean, it’s not “the MLB” the way it’s “the NBA” or “the NFL.”
No one “plays in the Major League Baseball.”
I know what you were saying, and I don’t give a *&^k.
Just like your grammar is awful when asking me a question in a quote.
Not quite the bombshell I had hoped but quite odd that Portland’s general counsel seems confused why lawyers for a city government (subject to FOIA requirements) would ask for answers in writing. Also odd for how it wound up being published (same GC accidentally forwarded it to the city’s lawyers and media FOIA’d it. Uh huh.)
https://katu.com/news/investigations/internal-emails-reveal-blazers-debated-responding-to-portlands-moda-center-questions-portland-nba-oregon-business-economy-local-money
Two things can be true when talking about Dundon: he THINKS he’s playing 4D chess, and he is an asshole. He can try to claim the Stanley Cup as vindication for his financial model for team success, but he cannot do so; the Canes success is mostly due to unbelievable coaching from BrindAmour, who he’s treated shabbily financially. If he thinks he can do away with max contracts for his superstars, when he gets them, then he will be checkmated. And, who will he have on his team in 2030 that will be a benefit for another city to open its coffers? Lillard? I don’t think so.