Seattle still fighting move; it should

Seattle is playing hardball over the SuperSonics' exodus, filing lawsuits by the dozens and fiery darts by the score. NBA commish David Stern calls it a scorched-earth policy, Clay Bennett looks like he's just sparred with Randy Couture and Seattle seems unwilling to face reality on this ultimate fight for possession of the SuperSonics.

So here's what I have to say to the people of the Great Northwest: I don't blame you.

I would kick and scream, too. Fight and scratch. Sermonize and sue. Bar myself across every doorway, throw up roadblocks across freeways, shut down every port along Puget Sound, in an effort to keep the green and gold alive.

Here's why: It's a lot easier to keep a team than to get one back. Retention is a better bet than returntion, which is not a word, but you know what I mean.

Yes, it seems absurd the NBA would have franchises in Salt Lake City, Sacramento and Oklahoma City, but not Seattle.

It also seems silly that the NFL would have franchises in Jacksonville, Buffalo and Green Bay, but not Los Angeles. Yet here we are, 14 years and counting since LA had a football team anywhere besides a Hollywood sound stage. You can't play double dare with major-league sports.

True, some cities don't stay dark long. St. Louis went seven years without the NFL after losing the Cardinals to Arizona. Houston went seven years without the NFL after losing the Oilers to Tennessee. Cleveland went three seasons without the NFL after losing the original Browns to Baltimore.

Milwaukee went only four years without baseball after losing the Braves to Atlanta, and Kansas City went only one year without baseball after losing the Athletics to Oakland.

And Charlotte went only two seasons without the NBA after losing the Hornets to New Orleans.

But those are the exceptions.

In the NFL, Oakland went 13 years without a team before Al Davis came home. Baltimore went 12 years between the Colts and Ravens. And of course, Los Angeles still waits.

In baseball, Washington, D.C., went 33 years between the Senators and Nationals.

And the NBA is the most unrelenting league of them all. New Orleans went 24 years between the Jazz and Hornets. Minneapolis went 29 years between the Lakers and Timberwolves. But at least those cities eventually got teams.

It's 23 years and counting for Kansas City; 24 years and counting for San Diego; 30 years and counting for Buffalo; 36 years and counting for Cincinnati; 40 years and counting for St. Louis.

All are big-league cities that support franchises in other sports. But the NBA has not returned.

There is no assurance the NBA will return to Seattle if the Sonics flee. So don't blame Seattle for playing every card, even if it's just a nuisance.

Previous owner Howard Schultz's lawsuit, the constant references to an ownership group willing to buy the team from Clay Bennett, forgetting the inconvenient fact that the Sonics aren't for sale?

All just delay techniques. Delay, delay, delay. Which is solid strategy. Keep the Sonics around as long as possible in hopes of a miracle. Maybe an arena deal develops, maybe someone besides Mark Cuban starts asking questions, maybe Bennett grows discouraged.

Long shots all, but better shots than giving the Sonics a civil sendoff and telling the NBA to keep Seattle in mind.

Nothing is off the table. Remember back in 1983, Baltimore officials were prepared to claim imminent domain on the Colts, the taking of private property for public use. That's why Robert Irsay loaded up the Mayflower trucks by nightfall and got the heck out of Maryland.

Desperate cities will try anything, and should. I would want Oklahoma City to do the same.

Of course, there comes a time when surrender is the best option, and we saw that in Cleveland and Charlotte. Discretion became the better part of valor as those cities turned diplomatic with the NFL (Cleveland) and the NBA (Charlotte). Said, hey, we know you're going, but let's talk about how you can come back.

As stated, the new Browns were back in business after three years, and the NBA returned to Charlotte after just two years away.

Seattle, at some point, might have to make that hard decision. Its lease with the Sonics and the mess of all the lawsuits gives Seattle some leverage.

The NBA would like for this to be a clean break, and Seattle can make it very clean. But it would want something in return, and that something is the promise of a new team.

When does surrender become Seattle's best option? When it knows the Sonics are gone for sure. Some in Seattle already have accepted that. Some have not. And I don't blame them.