Over their short, uneventful history, the Vancouver Grizzlies have lost four out of every five games they've played. In most business scenarios, that type of success would translate into many things, none of them cachet or buzz.

	Mike Bibby is a nice baller, but ...

But you can go to the bank on this one: Once the ink is dry on the Grizzlies' letter of transit from Canada, don't be surprised to see anywhere from 6 to 10 cities in the United States lusting after them. Maybe David Stern does have it right. After all, how bad can his league be when a team which loses 80 percent of its games will be treated like that couple in the car advertisement who keep changing their minds, only to find more options?

The question du jour, of course, is where will they wind up. We know it won't be Vancouver. That lifeline known as 'Save The Grizzlies' ratcheted it up last summer and delivered an astounding 150 season tickets, and no luxury boxes, in their gritty effort to keep the team in town. Michael Heisley, the beleaguered owner, was willing to lose $9 million a year and stay put. He has as much chance of doing that as he does of winning the Western Conference title.

Canada is a tough sell. You can't keep the players there year-round because of tax consequences. Heisley built a new practice facility, yet, over the summer, you might as well have the YMCA because no one is around. Vancouver's provincial tax is higher than either Alberta's or Ontario's. There is no corporate base there, as we saw with the overwhelming response from the Vancouver business community. The Grizzlies get only half what the Canucks do for the same luxury box; half of those are unsold. They have a broadcast package so economically irrelevant that it basically amounts to Radio Free Vancouver -- propaganda. They could sell out, every game, and still lose money.

Of course, the sensible thing to do for all concerned won't happen. The Grizzlies should be euthanized. It also wouldn't hurt the NBA if Stern invited the Nets, Clippers, Hornets and Raptors to the same mercy killing. The NBA has too many teams, not enough good players, and the best thing for the sport would be for five teams to disappear.

But that won't happen. The Grizzlies will be allowed to move on and build a new life. Right now, they have no idea where that will be. As one member of the organization said this week, "we really didn't have a Plan B."

MOVIN' ON

Here are all the teams in NBA history that have moved. The year listed is the first season they played in their new city, and in some cases is the most recent move the franchise has made. 76ers - Syracuse (Nationals) to Philadelphia, 1963-64 Clippers - San Diego to Los Angeles, 1984-85* Hawks - St. Louis to Atlanta, 1968-69 Jazz - New Orleans to Salt Lake City, 1979-80 Kings - Kansas City to Sacramento, 1985-86** Lakers - Minneapolis to Los Angeles, 1960-61 Pistons - Fort Wayne to Detroit, 1957-58 Rockets - San Diego to Houston, 1971-72 Warriors - San Francisco to Oakland, 1971-72# Wizards - Baltimore to Washington, 1973-74% Notes: * The franchise began as the Buffalo Braves in 1970-71 and became the Clippers upon moving to San Diego in 1978-79; ** The franchise originated in Rochester in 1948-49 and moved to Cincinnati (1957-58), Kansas City-Omaha (1972-73), and Kansas City (1975-76) before settling in Sacramento; # The Warriors originated in Philadelphia and moved to San Francisco in 1962-63; % The franchise originated in Chicago in 1961-62 and moved to Baltimore in 1963-64 before settling in Washington in 1973-74.

We do, sort of. We can at least provide some free advice to Heisley & Co. as to where he might wind up. As Claude Rains said, line up the usual suspects.

Anaheim: Does the NBA have enough for three teams in Southern California? Oh, I mean, two. But as anyone who lives there knows, Orange County is not Los Angeles. You have one necessity in place: an arena in need of a tenant. It's also a new arena and a nice one. The NBA for years was hoping Clippers owner Donald Sterling would move here. But he prefers the LA scene. This is also, short of our next possibility, probably the best weather bet.

Las Vegas: Boy, do you think Heisley would have any trouble getting free agents to this place? There's a reason the Players Association has its annual meeting in Nassau. It's the same reason why people come here. But the NBA is likely to launch a preemptive strike here, simply because of the gambling element. Plus, Rick Pitino will insist on a clause in his UNLV contract that he be the only coach in town.

St. Louis: This is supposedly the best sports city in America (I don't recall that being the case before Mark McGwire) and it lacks only the NBA among the big four sports. This was almost home for the Grizzlies before Heisley bought the team, but it wasn't due to the city or its folksy residents. It was due, plain and simple, to the fact that the man who was going to purchase the team -- Bill Laurie -- owned the arena in town and thought it made sense to have another team to join his Blues. Heisley has no such bent and he apparently isn't interested in selling the team. And Mr. Laurie made a strategic mistake when he announced his intentions to buy the Grizzlies in September of 1999. He did so without running it by Mr. Stern, who happened to be in town at the time. Not a good idea. So that one died a quick death. Laurie still is in St. Louis. Think Stern will want to send the Grizzlies there?

Nashville, Louisville, Columbus: Why do we even mention these places? They are college towns with no pro tradition and the NBA already made that mistake with Charlotte. Go back to your gun racks and NASCAR races, guys.

Cincinnati: Now, here's a chance to right an injustice, unless the Grizzlies end up in Buffalo. Cincinnati has a long NBA history and a suitable building on the river. The Royals' franchise which once bequeathed us Oscar Robertson, Wayne Embry and Jack Twyman has moved twice since then, ending up in Sacramento (which will be Vancouver when Chris Webber leaves.) The only problem might be its proximity to Indianapolis.

Buffalo: There was no reason for the Braves to move west, except their owner decided he'd rather be in San Diego. And that was after he traded the franchise for the Celtics. (There was no cap back then, nor, we presume, an effective commissioner.) There's an acceptable building and, well, it's nice there in the summer. This would be an even more viable option if Toronto weren't across the lake. But Toronto will be Vancouver once Vince Carter clears customs.

Chicago: Why not? New York and LA have two teams. Why not Chicago? There is a building ready for them (the Rosemont Horizon) and almost every executive in the Grizzlies organization, from Heisley to basketball boss Dick Versace to assistant general manager/attorney George Andrews, is a Chicago guy. We can assume Jerry Reinsdorf might not find this idea amusing, but he could be persuaded knowing that a worse team than his will be in town.

New Orleans: This would not be a tough sell to players. But New Orleans once had a team, lost it, and then was deemed unworthy by the NBA when the Timberwolves thought about going there a few years ago. What they do have is a new arena which needs dates and is willing to accommodate a tenant. The terms might be attractive, but if you're an NBA coach, you make sure you have a traveling bondsman on the payroll.

Peter May, who covers the NBA for the Boston Globe, is a regular contributor to ESPN.com.