Anaheim Kings?

[TheOldRoman]

Sacramento Kings moving to Anaheim?

Terrible idea.

Not only because there are 2 NBA teams in the Los Angeles market (Lakers and Clippers), but also there's an NHL team in L.A. called the Kings.

Agreed of 1 of 2 points. Because, they'd probably rebrand the club...Maybe...

Being that the Kings name has survived for 39 years across two cities (with the similar Royals name beforehand), it would be a shame for them to abandon it. Just go with the Kansas City move and be done with it.

[raysox]

Weren't the owners connected with Vegas somehow? If they moved, they should move there. It would keep the divisions the same, stay out of the 2 team market, and they'd be the only major team, so fan support.

Plus, they're planning on building this.

http://stadiaarcadia.blogspot.com/2010/08/silver-state-arena.html

EDIT: I guess they own a hotel there.

[Burmy]

Sacramento Kings moving to Anaheim?

Terrible idea.

Not only because there are 2 NBA teams in the Los Angeles market (Lakers and Clippers), but also there's an NHL team in L.A. called the Kings.

Agreed of 1 of 2 points. Because, they'd probably rebrand the club...Maybe...

Being that the Kings name has survived for 39 years across two cities (with the similar Royals name beforehand), it would be a shame for them to abandon it. Just go with the Kansas City move and be done with it.

Anaheim Royals anyone? Because the only reason the team changed to the Kings was because of the KC Royals (which makes no sense at the time-why not have a "Baseball Royals" and a "Basketball Royals"-it's worked for the Giants, Cardinals, Pirates, Yankees, & Dodgers among other teams)

[McCall]

Weren't the owners connected with Vegas somehow? If they moved, they should move there. It would keep the divisions the same, stay out of the 2 team market, and they'd be the only major team, so fan support.

Plus, they're planning on building this.

http://stadiaarcadia.blogspot.com/2010/08/silver-state-arena.html

EDIT: I guess they own a hotel there.

Read previous messages about how Vegas is not an option due to economic problems.

[BrianVlietDesign]

Weren't the owners connected with Vegas somehow? If they moved, they should move there. It would keep the divisions the same, stay out of the 2 team market, and they'd be the only major team, so fan support.

Plus, they're planning on building this.

http://stadiaarcadia.blogspot.com/2010/08/silver-state-arena.html

EDIT: I guess they own a hotel there.

Read previous messages about how Vegas is not an option due to economic problems.

If Vegas is not an option, I can only see Anaheim then. Sure, KC is a valid option, as well. But, I really don't think they're going to move the team there. I'm sorry. This team looks to be So Cal bound.

[Lights Out]

The Pirates are the worst team in the last 20 years they have won five World Series and have a great ballpark.

They did win 5 championships... but the last one was in 1979. Pro sports is a "what have you done for me lately" kind of business, and the Pirates have done nothing lately. Also, the Clippers have a great stadium. Your point?

The Kings had some success in the early 2000's were screwed by the refs in 2002 and play in a city that clearly is not a major league town, and that hurts their chances of contending.

Other than the early 2000's, the Kings have been an absolute joke of a franchise. They've been around since 1945, but have only won their division five times. They have two championships... but the last one came in 1951. Again, what have they done for their fans lately?

The Grizzlies suck maybe they are as bad as the Clippers, but the Clippers have a 20 year head start on them.

The Grizzlies have a worse franchise winning percentage, and a horrible owner in Michael Heisley. They're also on their second city and still irrelevant.

The Hornets just had a bad owner, but they have a star player and are capable of contending last year was a fluke they missed the playoffs as Chris Paul was hurt.

...and? Their financial situation is such a mess that Stern is considering contracting the Hornets. Say what you want about Sterling, but he hasn't mismanaged the Clippers' finances to the point where they could be contracted.

The Marlins have won two World Series titles and despite their fire sales their football stadium they manage to not be as bad as they could be.

The fire sales are what make them an awful franchise in the first place. A good franchise would be moving mountains to keep their championship teams together for as long as possible, not saying "well, that's enough to make the fans happy, let's sell sell sell."

[Lights Out]

The Florida Panthers are the most irrelevant team in sports history. Even mentioning them here gives them more attention than they deserve.

Agreed.

The Islanders had a dynasty 30 years ago they have had a rough 20 years but that dynasty still means something.

Again, twenty years is too long of a period in which to suck and still be considered a good franchise. Also, they have one of the worst owners in sports in Charles Wang.

The Coyotes are battling for first place as we speak they are just an ill-placed team that if they moved to a market that cared about hockey would do well.

The Coyotes only still exist because Bettman is too stubborn to admit he made a mistake.

The Clippers have always been awful they have won one playoff series since leaving Buffalo they have only made the playoffs 4 times in 35 years in a Sport where 16 teams make the playoffs. They have finished in last place countless times. They have lost 50 or more even more times. They have never had a star player that they have been able to keep healthy or keep from leaving.

Most of this took place before this past decade, which is the timeframe in which I have argued that they've improved. I agree that before 2000 or so, the Clippers were the worst franchise in sports. But they are no longer near as dysfunctional now as they were back in the dark days of the franchise, where the team practiced at a public gym and Sterling didn't resign any players. It is possible for a franchise to improve - look at the Patriots, for instance, or the Mavericks.

They share an arena with the biggest and most successful team in the same period of time.

The Jets share a stadium with the far-more-successful Giants. Nobody calls them the worst franchise in sports.

Their logo with different colors and a different font is similar to that same team.

...because if there's one barometer you can REALLY judge a franchise's success by, it's their logo.

[Gothamite]

...because if there's one barometer you can REALLY judge a franchise's success by, it's their logo.

You forget what boards you're on?

[Lights Out]

No, I know full well what board I'm on. Doesn't mean that it's not still stupid to say a franchise sucks because of their logo.

[dfwabel]

Weren't the owners connected with Vegas somehow? If they moved, they should move there. It would keep the divisions the same, stay out of the 2 team market, and they'd be the only major team, so fan support.

Plus, they're planning on building this.

http://stadiaarcadia.blogspot.com/2010/08/silver-state-arena.html

EDIT: I guess they own a hotel there.

Read previous messages about how Vegas is not an option due to economic problems.

McCall is correct.

While UNLV is looking at a private/public partnership for their proposed facility,the aforementioned the Silver State Arena project and two other Las Vegas arena proposals were rejected by the city and county in June 2010 as they wanted public money in some form.

[Gothamite]

No, I know full well what board I'm on. Doesn't mean that it's not still stupid to say a franchise sucks because of their logo.

Nobody said that. They said the franchise sucks and its logo sucks.

[rams80]

I asked this in the other relocation thread, but I'll pose the same thing here as this may be more appropriate. This is a serious question and I'm not trying to get all "winnipeg-coyotes" here, but why don't they move the Kings back to Cincinnati and rename them the Royals? How could that be any worse than putting them in a market with entrenched Laker history and fanbase and a second team? IIRC, I think Cincinnati was considered when they ultimately awarded Charlotte a second expansion team.

Aren't both Cincinnati arenas rather long in the tooth? That might be a reason.

[alwaysr92]

Honestly, as an Angels and Ducks fan...I would love to see a team move into The Ponda Center, however, as has been stated multiple times, I would much prefer my current favorite NBA team to move in-the Clippers. Seeing as though Dick Sterling cant make the commute to Anaheim, this doesnt seem very probable. If the Kings moved to Anaheim, I would for sure support them, and living in SoCal i honestly think Orange County would support them as well, but theres no doubt they'll have an uphill battle with the Lakers and Blake Griffin so close by. Also, the Samueli's for years have been trying to get an NBA team to Anaheim, I dont think they'll let an opportunity this close let slip through.

[dfwabel]

To all who want think the Clippers should move to Honda Center over the Kings or any other team:

The Clippers are about to be one of only two teams in the NBA with zero debt! The impending sale of the Pistons will take them off that list. If Staples Center has a favorable lease and their six year old practice facility is in Culver City, near LAX, then they will stay at Staples Center as long as they can.

[rams80]

So ummm...honest question here. Do either the Clippers or the Lakers claim territorial rights to Anaheim? THAT could scuttle this proposed move right then and there.

[dfwabel]

So ummm...honest question here. Do either the Clippers or the Lakers claim territorial rights to Anaheim? THAT could scuttle this proposed move right then and there.

Both the L.A. teams or the Warriors could claim "territorial marketing rights", but that is not the end all be all for a move.

SJ Mercury News' Tim Kawakami talked about it in 2009 after he blogged about it with not having some key information.

From his blog:

Turns out, the NBA?s existing ?territorial rights? clause isn?t the primary controlling authority for potential franchise re-location within the Warriors? 75-mile territory.

I am now told that yes, Warriors owner Chris Cohan has Bay Area ?territorial marketing rights? and would almost certainly be heard loudly in the NBA offices if the Kings or any other team wanted to move to San Jose.

BUT: The NBA Board of Governors can do anything it wants as it pertains to franchise location in the best interests of the league and there is not a high tolerance for watching massive annual losses by any franchise.

Each owner has a vote on the board. Best interests = the most money for the owners? collective.

The Warriors DO NOT have strict veto power over any such possible move to San Jose. They?re a major player in this situation, but all power flows to the board of governors.

That?s a big difference from what I originally heard and wrote, and that?s especially important leading up to Friday?s scheduled meeting to present an NBA/Cal Expo plan for a new Kings arena on the fairgrounds site.

I got unclear information. That?s my fault. This is better information, and it does broaden the possibilities.

[rams80]

So San Jose may be an option, but how much additional revenue does a 3rd LA team seriously bring to the table? The Clips didn't bring that much revenue in BEFORE they moved in with the Lakers.

[dfwabel]

So San Jose may be an option, but how much additional revenue does a 3rd LA team seriously bring to the table? The Clips didn't bring that much revenue in BEFORE they moved in with the Lakers.

Remember there will be a new CBA and with any franchise relocation, we do not know how the money would be split in the future.

Current CBA on Total NBA Revenue

[Sport]

I asked this in the other relocation thread, but I'll pose the same thing here as this may be more appropriate. This is a serious question and I'm not trying to get all "winnipeg-coyotes" here, but why don't they move the Kings back to Cincinnati and rename them the Royals? How could that be any worse than putting them in a market with entrenched Laker history and fanbase and a second team? IIRC, I think Cincinnati was considered when they ultimately awarded Charlotte a second expansion team.

Aren't both Cincinnati arenas rather long in the tooth? That might be a reason.

Yes. US Bank Arena was built in the late 70's and renovated heavily in 1997, and only seats 12,000. Cincinnati Gardens is a charming old barn (with a dump of an attached practice rink that I sustained a bitch of a concussion in a JV game at), but it's clearly from a bygone era and only seats 10,000. That doesn't mean that Cincinnati building a new arena is out of the question. Remember, Cincinnati publicly financed both Paul Brown Stadium and Great American Ball Parks.

[rams80]

I asked this in the other relocation thread, but I'll pose the same thing here as this may be more appropriate. This is a serious question and I'm not trying to get all "winnipeg-coyotes" here, but why don't they move the Kings back to Cincinnati and rename them the Royals? How could that be any worse than putting them in a market with entrenched Laker history and fanbase and a second team? IIRC, I think Cincinnati was considered when they ultimately awarded Charlotte a second expansion team.

Aren't both Cincinnati arenas rather long in the tooth? That might be a reason.

Yes. US Bank Arena was built in the late 70's and renovated heavily in 1997, and only seats 12,000. Cincinnati Gardens is a charming old barn (with a dump of an attached practice rink that I sustained a bitch of a concussion in a JV game at), but it's clearly from a bygone era and only seats 10,000. That doesn't mean that Cincinnati building a new arena is out of the question. Remember, Cincinnati publicly financed both Paul Brown Stadium and Great American Ball Parks.

Publicly funded sporting pleasure palaces are much harder sells politically than they were even 5 years ago.