Anaheim Kings?

[Gothamite]

Oh, I think the odds of them not selling out the first game are somewhere between "slim" and "are you out of your ing mind?"

Selling out the first game is easy. Selling the first season, even, is easy. But novelty wears off awfully quickly.

I don't think this will be a terrible failure, like the Tampa Bay Rays. But unless they win championships very quickly, I have a hard time seeing how the cobbled-together fanbase provides enough sustaining support to keep this team going.

You're right that the LA market provides extra benefits. But it also involves extra costs - if they want to continue to fill those seats, the Kings will find that media buys are sunstantially higher in LA than in Sacramento.

[IceCap]

So IceCap, other than "because that's how it's always been" do you have anything to back up your argument that two teams in any sport in any one market is "just right" and three is too many?

It's always been two teams at maximum because that's all a single metropolitan area can realistically support. When you factor in the finite amount of corporate money available in any market, regardless of size, you have to draw the line somewhere. Two teams seems reasonable if the market can support it, but three, even in LA, seems like a stretch.

I'm saying "we don't know, looks like we're going to find out," but my guess is this will work.

I think the Royals are going to find out that it's harder to get Lakers fans to go to Royals/Jazz games then they first thought.

In fact what you stated above about the Lakers being alone for 24 years before the Clippers came along provides an example that this could now work 30 years after the Clippers. The Kings can come in, find a niche and be profitable.

See, you're using backwards logic again. The Clippers were the second team, they filled a void. LA is one of those metro areas that can support two teams, and the Clippers filled the spot. The Kings/Royals aren't filling that niche, they're just trying to squeeze into an already full marketplace. The Clippers moving in was completely different. They were the second team. The Kings/Royals would be the third wheel.

The only niche they'll consistently appeal to are the misguided Orange County Pride crowd, who'll support them just because they're an Anaheim team. I don't think there's enough there to build a solid fanbase. Most OC basketball fans will probably maintain their loyalties to either the Lakers or Clippers.

And every owner in the NBA cares more about winning than Sterling, so that has to be a plus as well, right? If they just make a minimal effort it would be an upgrade from the second option. But those L.A fans are "loyal to the death." That's Hollywood all right. Yes, that is sarcasm.

The Clippers are currently ahead of the Kings in the standings. They also have a somewhat promising line-up and an extremely successful marketing tool in the form of Black Griffen. They may not win much, but as long as Griffen keeps the hightlights coming the Clippers will always be more interesting then the Kings. The Kings just...exist. They're a bad team, but unlike the Clippers they're bad and bland. The Clippers are bad and exciting.

Everyone is so hung up on the number 3. Think a third baseball team could survive in New York? I do.

I don't.

By your own logic a third baseball team in Chicago would do well because the Cubs and White Sox are supported.

(And the point about the Angels wasn't about timing of moves... but I am going to let it go for the sake of the main discussion.)

Again, you don't seem to grasp my fundamental argument. You keep saying things like "the Angels could make it work," "the Clippers could make it work," or "the Ducks could make it work." All of those teams were the LA area's second team in their respective sports. The Kings/Royals would be the number three team. That's a world of difference. So please stop trying to use the Ducks' success to justify the Kings' move. It's not a valid comparison.

[bosrs1]

this is more Cubs-Sox than Panthers/Lightning.

Except LA already has its version of Cubs-Sox. This would be the equivalent of dropping a third baseball team in Chicago because the two teams they already have are so well-supported.

No, they don't. They have another NBA team interested primarily in making money sharing the NBA home of a more popular traditional power. Anaheim might have been a wise move for the Clippers, but they passed and are doing fine moneywise. It doesn't mean that a "south side" team, if you will, would fare any worse in a market this large.

This would be the equivalent of the Cubs deciding to move into a new Sox park because they can't win and just want to make money, and years later somebody sticks a third team in Wrigley because they left the north side unrepresented (although Schaumburg, Geneva or some other suburb a little further away would be more accurate/realistic to this scenario).

Maybe it's because same-sport teams don't share stadiums in Chicago like they do in L.A. and New York and because there's a north side / south side dynamic here that helps this seem more reasonable to me. Honestly, I think the Clippers are a non-factor in this.

After going to a Clippers game last week I'm inclined to agree with this viewpoint. I was shocked at the game quite frankly. I talked to about a dozen folks spread around me in my section and you know what I found, none of them were Clippers fans. There were some people who'd gotten tickets for free. There were a pair of Lakers fans who'd been priced out of Staples during Lakers games who were just there to see a game in general. There were visiting Wizards fans. And worst of all there were a few "Blake Griffin" fans, who aren't fans of the team but the player (and Griffin won't be a Clipper forever). But of all the people I talked to, not one was a true Clippers fan. Anecdotal I know, but if you can't find any true fans in an entire section it's not exactly a good thing.

I'm more convinced than ever that the Clippers don't have much of a fanbase so much as they have people who show up at their games for various reasons (the biggest ones these days being Blake Griffin and low prices). If the Kings show up in an actual rival location (that the Angels and Ducks already share), and field a decent to good team, they could easily surpass the Clippers very quickly.

[IceCap]

Agreed on all counts. This seems like a very shaky business model, trying to cobble together a fanbase out of some very small scraps; people who don't already follow basketball, new arrivals to the area and those few rabid Orange County partisans who will give up their decades-old allegiances just because this new team plays in Anaheim.

...and the lucrative local TV contract, corporate suites paid for every night (empty or not), stars that want to play in L.A., etc.

I'm sure the top tv stations in LA have their fill of Lakers and Clippers games. As for corporate support, well this has been covered. As big as LA is, the number of corporate dollars is still finite. Most of the money set aside for this type of thing has been gobbled up by the Lakers, with whatever is left being snatched up by the Clippers.

As for stars wanting to play in LA, well there's always the Lakers and Clippers, both of whom play in downtown Los Angeles. Playing for the Royals gets you playing in a glorified suburb. Which do you think is more exciting?

The leaked MLB financial records proved fans in the stands aren't everything.

Most of the people in OC who watch the NBA on tv regularly are probably set in their viewing habits watching the Lakers. There will be those OC partisans who will switch to the Royals, but I think the majority will stick with the Lakers.

But to your point, you don't even think they'll pull a Rays and sell out the first game?

I think that over time, once the novelty wears off, they'll have a similar situation to the Rays where they only fill the building when more established teams come to town.

I don't know, I guess despite my preference to have the Kings stay, I've become the main defender of this move here. I guess I find it fascinating that it could lead to such a shift in NBA philosophy if it happens and works.

It's simple for me. I'm a NHL fan first and foremost, and I've spent the last two decades watching that league try to force teams where they shouldn't have been placed on the pretense of the market's potential.

"The transplants will support the team." "The younger kids will grow up into fans." "The market's size guarantees financial success." "Look at the potential for television in the market!" These are all excuses I've heard to justify the NHL going into Miami, Atlanta, and Phoenix. They're also a lot of the same excuses given as to why the NBA Kings moving to Anaheim is a good idea. I've seen this play out, and it doesn't end well.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

After really thinking about it, the NBA landscape just isn't the same without Seattle. They really need to build an arena.

Are there any Sonics fans around? What are you guys doing as far as a favorite team? DId you follow them to OKC, pick a new team or are you just holding out until the NBA returns?

I don't even know what I'd do if the Pistons left town...

[IceCap]

I'm more convinced than ever that the Clippers don't have much of a fanbase so much as they have people who show up at their games for various reasons (the biggest ones these days being Blake Griffin and low prices). If the Kings show up in an actual rival location (that the Angels and Ducks already share), and field a decent to good team, they could easily surpass the Clippers very quickly.

The Kings are below the Clippers in the standings, they don't have a marketable player on the level of Blake Griffen, and they (shockingly) don't have as good an outlook as the Clippers. I think the Clippers will hold onto the number 2 spot just fine.

[bosrs1]

I'm more convinced than ever that the Clippers don't have much of a fanbase so much as they have people who show up at their games for various reasons (the biggest ones these days being Blake Griffin and low prices). If the Kings show up in an actual rival location (that the Angels and Ducks already share), and field a decent to good team, they could easily surpass the Clippers very quickly.

The Kings are below the Clippers in the standings, they don't have a marketable player on the level of Blake Griffen, and they (shockingly) don't have as good an outlook as the Clippers. I think the Clippers will hold onto the number 2 spot just fine.

We'll see. But I'm convinced that the Clippers "success" lately is entirely dependent on Griffin and the moment he leaves it's over. The Clippers themselves have very few true fans.

[dfwabel]

After really thinking about it, the NBA landscape just isn't the same without Seattle. They really need to build an arena.

Then you really need to help them find the money to pay for it.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

After really thinking about it, the NBA landscape just isn't the same without Seattle. They really need to build an arena.

Are there any Sonics fans around? What are you guys doing as far as a favorite team? DId you follow them to OKC, pick a new team or are you just holding out until the NBA returns?

I don't even know what I'd do if the Pistons left town...

We watch UW in the winter and the Sounders in the spring. (No one cares about the Blazers.)

An arena will come, but the public is most defintely not paying for it.

[Brian in Boston]

I'm sure the top tv stations in LA have their fill of Lakers and Clippers games.

As of the 2012-2013 NBA season, no Lakers games - with the exception of national network broadcasts - will be available on free, over-the-air television in Greater Los Angeles. As a result of the 20-year, $3-billion deal that the Lakers and Time Warner Cable recently entered into, all Lakers preseason, regular-season and post-season games will be shown on one of two regional sports networks - one English-language, the other Spanish-language - that Time Warner is launching. Current local broadcast partners KCAL Channel 9 and Fox Sports Net will soon be out of the Lakers broadcast business and potentially looking for new sports programming to carry. Both the Clippers and a relocated Kings/Royals franchise could benefit from such a scenario.

]Most of the people in OC who watch the NBA on tv regularly are probably set in their viewing habits watching the Lakers. There will be those OC partisans who will switch to the Royals, but I think the majority will stick with the Lakers.

How much Time Warner chooses to charge for its new premium regional sports networks will play a role in what Greater Los Angeles viewers - including those in Orange County - will do. Given that regional sports networks are generally the most expensive programming for distributors, plus the fact that Time Warner will be looking to generate enough income to recoup the $3-billion they're paying to the Lakers, I'd expect that Time Warner's new offerings will not be cheap. Many viewers could blanch at the price and look elsewhere for their basketball fix.

It's simple for me. I'm a NHL fan first and foremost, and I've spent the last two decades watching that league try to force teams where they shouldn't have been placed on the pretense of the market's potential.

"The transplants will support the team." "The younger kids will grow up into fans." "The market's size guarantees financial success." "Look at the potential for television in the market!" These are all excuses I've heard to justify the NHL going into Miami, Atlanta, and Phoenix. They're also a lot of the same excuses given as to why the NBA Kings moving to Anaheim is a good idea. I've seen this play out, and it doesn't end well.

Comparing the National Hockey League's attempts to market ice hockey in Miami, Atlanta and Phoenix to the potential challenges facing a National Basketball Association franchise setting-up shop in Anaheim isn't equitable. While neither the NBA or NHL is on par with Major League Baseball or the National Football League, the NBA - even with all of it current troubles - isn't a niche entity on the U.S. sports landscape to the extent that the NHL is. Further, it isn't as if basketball in Orange County is as inherently a difficult a sell as ice hockey is in South Florida, Georgia and Arizona.

Are the relocated Kings/Royals going to suddenly become the NBA's most profitable franchise? Of course not. That said, the Honda Center's 18,400 seats and 84 luxury suites look a hell of a lot better to the Maloofs than the 17,317 seats and 30 luxury suites at Power Balance Pavilion. Just as importantly, the prospect of trying to fill the Honda Center's 18,400 seats and 84 luxury suites from amongst an LA/OC Metro Area population of over 12-million people seems a hell of a lot more palatable than filling Power Balance Pavilion's 17,317 seats and 30 luxury suites from the Sacramento Metro Area's population of just over 2-million people.

Bottom line? The question isn't whether there are enough people in Anaheim, Orange County or the Greater Los Angeles Metro area to support a third NBA franchise in the region. There most certainly are. Rather, the question is whether or not the Maloofs will - once they've relocated the team - spend the money necessary to build a team potential fans will want to support? The Greater Los Angeles/Orange County marketplace loves to back winners and to follow trends. If fans in the region feel that the Anaheim Royals are the hot, new, winning thing... well, than people will show. If said fans get the feeling that the Maloofs are just going through the motions, it will be a tough sell.

[Gothamite]

Bottom line? The question isn't whether there are enough people in Anaheim, Orange County or the Greater Los Angeles Metro area to support a third NBA franchise in the region. There most certainly are.

I don't think that's quite the question.

It's not about raw population numbers. It's more "is there enough corporate money to be spent in Anaheim" and "are they going to be able to attract enough fans in Anaheim willing to spend money to go to games and buy merchandise". Neither of which is as much a slam-dunk (if you'll permit me) as "(are) there are enough people".

[The_Admiral]

As of the 2012-2013 NBA season, no Lakers games - with the exception of national network broadcasts - will be available on free, over-the-air television in Greater Los Angeles. As a result of the 20-year, $3-billion deal that the Lakers and Time Warner Cable recently entered into, all Lakers preseason, regular-season and post-season games will be shown on one of two regional sports networks - one English-language, the other Spanish-language - that Time Warner is launching. Current local broadcast partners KCAL Channel 9 and Fox Sports Net will soon be out of the Lakers broadcast business and potentially looking for new sports programming to carry. Both the Clippers and a relocated Kings/Royals franchise could benefit from such a scenario.

Over-the-air channels are mostly getting out, or being taken out, of the sports business. Not even mighty WGN shows more than half the Cubs schedule these days. Having KCAL carry all Lakers road games on free television is of a bygone era. The Kings will be able to sneak in on Prime Ticket, but I'm sure KCAL will just replace the Lakers with cheap syndicated stuff.

[Lights Out]

They also have a somewhat promising line-up and an extremely successful marketing tool in the form of Black Griffen.

He's only half-black.

But I'm convinced that the Clippers "success" lately is entirely dependent on Griffin

Eric Gordon, DeAndre Jordan, and Mo Williams all say hi.

and the moment he leaves it's over.

That would be in 2018 at the earliest if he even WANTS to leave the Clippers. That's another thing - why does everybody assume Griffin wants to leave the Clippers? Has anyone even considered that he might not give a crap about the team's history?

The Clippers themselves have very few true fans.

A quick glance at this season's attendance numbers says otherwise. And before you claim that it's only because of Griffin, last year (when Griffin missed the whole season), the Clippers were 20th and the Kings were 29th. The year before Griffin was drafted, the Clippers were 22nd and the Kings were dead last in the league. In fact, the last time the Kings didn't rank 27th-30th in attendance was the 2006-2007 season, when they were 16th. (The Clippers were still ahead of them that year, 11th in attendance). Some fanbase you got there in Sacramento. I'd think about that if I were you before insinuating that other teams "don't have fans."

And every owner in the NBA cares more about winning than Sterling

Really? Michael Heisley, James Dolan, MLSE, Herb Kohl, and Glen Taylor all care about winning more than Sterling? Because they aren't exactly showing it if they do.

[IceCap]

They also have a somewhat promising line-up and an extremely successful marketing tool in the form of Black Griffen.

He's only half-black.

Ugg.

[rams80]

I'm more convinced than ever that the Clippers don't have much of a fanbase so much as they have people who show up at their games for various reasons (the biggest ones these days being Blake Griffin and low prices). If the Kings show up in an actual rival location (that the Angels and Ducks already share), and field a decent to good team, they could easily surpass the Clippers very quickly.

And therein lies the crux of the issue. Barring some skillful and lucky drafting, the Kings/Royals will not field a decent to good team as long as the Maloofs own the franchise because, again, they cannot afford to sign top flight players.

-------------------------------------------------------

There's only one current example of a traditional "Big 4" league fielding 3 teams in a market-the NHL in New York. And New York has never been able to support all 3 teams adequately. With about 7 million extra people and teams with clearly delineated and theoretically sustainable geographic territories. I know hockey =/= basketball, but if you have trouble making that model work in New York, I just don't see a large enough coalition fan and corporate base organizing to make this a truly viable franchise long term in Los Angeles.

[bosrs1]

I'm more convinced than ever that the Clippers don't have much of a fanbase so much as they have people who show up at their games for various reasons (the biggest ones these days being Blake Griffin and low prices). If the Kings show up in an actual rival location (that the Angels and Ducks already share), and field a decent to good team, they could easily surpass the Clippers very quickly.

And therein lies the crux of the issue. Barring some skillful and lucky drafting, the Kings/Royals will not field a decent to good team as long as the Maloofs own the franchise because, again, they cannot afford to sign top flight players.

-------------------------------------------------------

There's only one current example of a traditional "Big 4" league fielding 3 teams in a market-the NHL in New York. And New York has never been able to support all 3 teams adequately. With about 7 million extra people and teams with clearly delineated and theoretically sustainable geographic territories. I know hockey =/= basketball, but if you have trouble making that model work in New York, I just don't see a large enough coalition fan and corporate base organizing to make this a truly viable franchise long term in Los Angeles.

No you're right, without some real delineation long term between the franchises geographically 3 teams probably won't work long term in the LA region. However in that situation I don't think the Royals lose out. The Clippers do. Hell it's the main reason the Clippers have been so marginalized this past quarter century (beyond just fielding pitiful teams). They've got no identity geographically. And they made a bad situation worse when they moved into Staples. They're not LA's team (that's the Lakers), and unlike the Royals they're not the OC's team either.

The Clippers are, and irregardless of if the Royals happen, will remain an abberation. I mean who are Clippers fans? From what I've long read and heard even from Clippers fans, they're people who don't want to be Lakers fans... well how many people like that can there be in LA? Who in LA, the trendiest of towns who love winners, doesn't love the Lakers?

[Lights Out]

The Clippers may not have the biggest fanbase but at least we have a loyal one to speak of. The Kings have no loyal fanbase and routinely finish last in the league or close to it nowadays. And spare me the crap about how Arco is falling apart, since it was just fine for Kings "fans" when the team was winning.

Furthermore, the Clippers routinely hover around the mid-teens and early-twenties in attendance every year. Not good, but a great deal better than how the Kings are doing at the box office. I expect the Clippers' attendance to rise even further in the years to come with Griffin in town.

To claim that the Clippers have no identity geographically is ludicrous. We're only in the second-largest media market in the country! Even crappy teams get attention in that big of a market. Why do you think the Mets still get talked about despite how inept they've been over the past two decades? A large market will do that for you.

Finally, suggesting that the Clippers somehow "made a bad situation worse" by moving to Staples is again ludicrous. How many times does it need to be explained that Sterling is getting the cheapest and most favorable lease in the NBA at Staples? Not to mention, Staples is arguably the best arena in the NBA, and one of the best in sports. Sorry, not buying it.

In conclusion, suck it up and accept the fact that your beloved Kings are getting the shaft in this scenario, not the two already-established teams in the area. The Kings are trying to fit a square peg into an already-filled round hole with this move, and it's not going to work out for them.

[rams80]

I think a scenario in which the Ducks and Royals kill each other is more plausible than the Royals outlasting the Clippers. If the Clips haven't been losing money before now, they never will.

[The Six]

Finally, suggesting that the Clippers somehow "made a bad situation worse" by moving to Staples is again ludicrous. How many times does it need to be explained that Sterling is getting the cheapest and most favorable lease in the NBA at Staples?

I've gone over this on other message boards. Even after explaining it the conversation goes on and people just repeat the exact same thing. For some reason they can't comprehend that the Clippers are doing fine. It doesn't matter how many times you say otherwise.

[Lights Out]

I just think people are so caught up in the same old "LOLOLOLOL CLIPURZ SUK" narrative that they fail to see that the Clippers have the resources to compete, they just have had really bad luck over the past few years. Sterling hasn't even been terrible management-wise over the past few years (by his standards). He has spent responsibly, which is different from being cheap. Unfortunately, his old ways have colored his legacy to the point where even responsible spending is called cheapness and anything short of a championship is "just the same old Clippers," which creates unfair expectations.