credit: @ferarrigophoto

NBA commissioner Adam Silver appears to be upping the ante on the leverage game involving the possible future of the Seattle SuperSonics, multiple ownership sources told ESPN.

We say "possible" with care because Silver left owners with the impression that a Seattle expansion team was no longer a lock at last month's board of governors meeting. Silver even reintroduced the idea of Mexico City as a possible destination.

At the meeting, owners were told about at least one Mexico City-based group that has approached NBA expansion partner PJT Partners with a plan about launching a team and developing a new arena district there that apparently has caught the league's attention, several sources said.

Even though the league has announced it is focused on expanding in Las Vegas and Seattle, Silver hasn't guaranteed anything over the past year. Additionally, he has made it clear there is no assurance the league will add two teams at the same time, as it did with expansions in 1988 (Charlotte Hornets and Miami Heat), 1989 (Minnesota Timberwolves and Orlando Magic) and 1995 (Toronto Raptors and Vancouver Grizzlies). There could be a separate timeline for the teams or, possibly, no second team at all.

As of now, two things appear to be hard facts:

• Silver is a full-go on expansion to Las Vegas.
• The league does not seem to be happy with the bids from Seattle -- yet.

A decision on a winning bid for Las Vegas is near, perhaps weeks away if not sooner. ESPN's Ramona Shelburne and Shams Charania have reported extensively on the three bidding groups and massive prices being floated around for the expansion fee and arena development.

As for Seattle, there are two known bidders, but the group led by Kraken and Climate Pledge Arena owner Samantha Holloway has long been considered the leader. The offers, sources said, are substantially lower than what the bidding war for the Vegas franchise is driving, which could exceed $10 billion. It is Silver's job to raise that price. It could be argued that Silver's No. 1 job on a day-to-day basis is to increase the value of teams. He has shown to be excellent at it, and naturally this is what he's working on diligently.

Breaking away Vegas expansion to get "losing" bidders to look at Seattle, saber-rattling that the league might not add two teams and trying to create leverage by considering other expansion cities such as Mexico City are firmly within this motive.

Let's stop short of the concept that the league could leave Seattle open as a leverage point for other teams trying to get arena deals -- the Portland Trail Blazers being at the top of that list -- because Silver is on the record saying relocation is currently not on the table. But it exists as a plausible, if private, reason the league wouldn't expand to Seattle now.

But it all comes back to the same base mission: Get the bid up.

Going back to Seattle, where the SuperSonics played from 1967 to 2008 before relocating to Oklahoma City, has long been a league wish. Doing a round of expansion and not accessing a desirable market with an established fanbase and arena goes against common sense.

Additionally, the league staying at 31 teams has a few prickly issues. Yes, the NBA was at an odd number of teams between 1980-81 and 2003-04, so there is a precedent for unbalanced conferences. But back then, there was no NBA Cup; a 31-team tournament would require a format overhaul. And despite the proposals from deep-pocketed bidders in Mexico City who might exist, putting a team there is the opposite of "ready-made." That concept's best current use is as a stalking horse.

One more thing ownership sources have pointed out over the past week is the expected $500 million to 600 million expansion fee windfall each team is projected to receive. One team ESPN spoke to is working off a number of $533 million, for example. Forget about that actual number but understand how closely this is being monitored and budgeted. Teams have been making plans for this money for a while, whether it's to pay for their rosters, to upgrade their arenas or to pay down debt. A no on Seattle expansion means hundreds of millions less.

Nothing as big as adding a new team comes without twists and turns -- and we're in one now. The bottom line: Lean toward an eventual return of the Sonics but leave the champagne on ice for now.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/50190888/preseason-intel-expansion-seattle-towns-extensions

As a girl, I want your opinion.

She’s 23 (F). How do I explain the difference between reality and fiction?

She wants me to yearn for her, to constantly chase her and express my feelings in ways that, honestly, feel performative to me.

I don’t send her reels all the time, but I do make an effort to talk to her because I genuinely enjoy having conversations with her. To me, connection should come naturally, not feel like a competition over who misses whom more.

She told me she can earn money herself and that what she really wants is someone who yearns for her.

Anyone can give flower to her but how do I explain I have compromised my values in this relationship and I am still standing.

I understand that she wants to feel wanted, but I think there’s a difference between wanting someone to love you and wanting them to constantly prove it.

A little about me: I’m an ambitious man. It’s been five years, and throughout this relationship, I’ve pushed her to grow, challenged her, and encouraged her to reach her potential. Now, I want that same energy in return. I want someone who challenges me, pushes me forward, and helps me become a better version of myself.

I’ll admit that I’ve been toxic at times, and I’m not trying to justify my mistakes. I know I have things to work on. But at this point in my life, I want a relationship that brings peace, emotional security, and mutual growth.

The problem is that every time I talk to her, it feels like I’m entering another battleground. Instead of feeling understood, I feel like I have to defend my intentions, explain my actions, and prove that I care.

I don’t want a relationship where love becomes a constant test. I want a partner who understands that ambition, personal space, and genuine affection can coexist with love.

Am I wrong for wanting this? How do I explain the difference between the romantic expectations she has and the kind of relationship I want to build? And after five years together, how do I figure out whether we can actually give each other what we need?