Anaheim Kings?

[rams80]

The Maloofs do get a vote and there's no way you're going to get a simple majority to vote against this. The owners club is just that. The NBA wants to move the Hornets at some point and there's no compelling reason for any of the power broker owners to squash this. If this move weren't de facto green lighted, there's no way the Maloofs would have one foot out of the door. There's less blowing smoke than what happened in Seattle obviously, but...I don't think this is anything other than owners who can't afford to run a team in a small market anymore.

Ummm...I don't know about you, but I think the Hornets being in play makes a VERY compelling reason to squash this if you are Chicago, New York, New Jersey, and Golden State. They don't want somebody to look at Anaheim and say, "hey, if the LA area could do it (which it can't) why can't those other markets?" and move the Hornets into their territory.

And the Maloofs can't afford to own the team period. Moving only buys them a year or two.

[McCall]

The Maloofs do get a vote and there's no way you're going to get a simple majority to vote against this. The owners club is just that. The NBA wants to move the Hornets at some point and there's no compelling reason for any of the power broker owners to squash this. If this move weren't de facto green lighted, there's no way the Maloofs would have one foot out of the door. There's less blowing smoke than what happened in Seattle obviously, but...I don't think this is anything other than owners who can't afford to run a team in a small market anymore.

Ummm...I don't know about you, but I think the Hornets being in play makes a VERY compelling reason to squash this if you are Chicago, New York, New Jersey, and Golden State. They don't want somebody to look at Anaheim and say, "hey, if the LA area could do it (which it can't) why can't those other markets?" and move the Hornets into their territory.

And the Maloofs can't afford to own the team period. Moving only buys them a year or two.

Still that's only 4 teams. Even with favors being called in it doesn't seem likely they'd reach 16. Or is it 15? What happens with a split count? And though I think Anaheim will only be effective in the very short term it will be an upgrade from Sacramento.

[rams80]

Aren't a lot of NBA teams supposed to be hurting? Maybe a little cash infusion from the wealthier owners (who all coincidentally, have reasons to oppose this) to some of their sick brothers buys some votes.

[NatsFan2004]

I don't think anyone has ever questioned the team's fan support. The Kings aren't trying to move from a lack of fans. The Kings are trying to move so they can get into a newer arena (and score some quick cash while they are at it.)

I disagree with the first part of that.

Those on this board may not have questioned Sacramento's fan support, but the Maloofs trying to move is a clear questioning of Sacramento's long-term ability to support the team (both in butts in the seats, which have waned in recent years, and dollars).

If they could get an arena deal done, even if they had to pony up to some degree, don't you think they would? They would control the facility completely. In the case of Anaheim, they do not control the facility (and all of the revenue from their games, not to mention the ancillary events) so 1.) they risk becoming the building's red-headed stepchildren particularly with respect to game dates, and 2.) the arena revenue they'll get will be limited.

Personally, I think the Maloofs see a market where the economy is hurting, unemployment is through the roof, and people are caught up in fighting to keep their homes due to crappy mortgages. I think they see that and compare the long-term prospects of staying versus being a third wheel in Anaheim (including a not-great arena lease situation) and think they'll be better off financially chasing the Lakers' leftovers in LA.

I think the value of the Here We Build campaign is to show ownership and the media that Sacramento fan support, in terms of people and cash, is still there. The hope is that this will show that Sacramento is just as good an option as Anaheim for the Maloofs to consider and that maybe getting something done in town might not be so bad after all.

That said, even the guy who put the campaign together admits that the likelihood of the team moving is probably 85-90%, so it's a long shot any way you look at it.

[B-Rich]

The NBA wants to move the Hornets at some point and there's no compelling reason for any of the power broker owners to squash this.

What makes you say this, given everything out of the commissioner's mouth has been how they are trying to keep the team in the city? And how do you define "the NBA"-- a group of owners who operate in their own individual interest, or the face of the league who is hired by the owners to look after their best interests as a whole and refereee their disputes?

[dfwabel]

Aren't a lot of NBA teams supposed to be hurting? Maybe a little cash infusion from the wealthier owners (who all coincidentally, have reasons to oppose this) to some of their sick brothers buys some votes.

The talk is that the owners will lockout the players in June for sure. Financially, it is reported that if there is a lockout, 18 of the 31 owners would operate next season with a profit.

[tp49]

I don't think anyone has ever questioned the team's fan support. The Kings aren't trying to move from a lack of fans. The Kings are trying to move so they can get into a newer arena (and score some quick cash while they are at it.)

I disagree with the first part of that.

Those on this board may not have questioned Sacramento's fan support, but the Maloofs trying to move is a clear questioning of Sacramento's long-term ability to support the team (both in butts in the seats, which have waned in recent years, and dollars).

If they could get an arena deal done, even if they had to pony up to some degree, don't you think they would? They would control the facility completely. In the case of Anaheim, they do not control the facility (and all of the revenue from their games, not to mention the ancillary events) so 1.) they risk becoming the building's red-headed stepchildren particularly with respect to game dates, and 2.) the arena revenue they'll get will be limited.

Personally, I think the Maloofs see a market where the economy is hurting, unemployment is through the roof, and people are caught up in fighting to keep their homes due to crappy mortgages. I think they see that and compare the long-term prospects of staying versus being a third wheel in Anaheim (including a not-great arena lease situation) and think they'll be better off financially chasing the Lakers' leftovers in LA.

I think the value of the Here We Build campaign is to show ownership and the media that Sacramento fan support, in terms of people and cash, is still there. The hope is that this will show that Sacramento is just as good an option as Anaheim for the Maloofs to consider and that maybe getting something done in town might not be so bad after all.

That said, even the guy who put the campaign together admits that the likelihood of the team moving is probably 85-90%, so it's a long shot any way you look at it.

I don't disagree with it at all. The fan support is definitely there in Sacramento. The city bleeds purple and black. It doesn't translate into fans in the seats because for the past few years the product is/was crap. People in Sacramento have limited disposable income which I submit that if the Kings were any good they would show up in droves just as they have in the past. In another thread not related to the Kings move, someone posted stats related to local television ratings for NBA teams. The Kings have fairly good ratings and draw a far greater percentage of viewers then say the Clippers or Nets. The fan support is still there for sure but if you lived in the Sacramento area when looking to spend your scarce entertainment dollar do you really want to give it to an ownership group who just doesn't care?

As I have little faith in the city to get an arena plan done (I'll believe it when it is in place and approved) I have even less faith in the Malooff's ability to run the franchise. The new naming rights deal was a complete joke. So much so that it was the butt of jokes on local radio in Sacramento not just for the name but for how little they got for it.

Their inability to run a franchise also shows in the Anaheim lease it reeks of someone preying on a weak owner. If the Malooff's think they're going to make any real money in Anaheim they're delusional and when they go to negotiate a television deal reality will really hit them because I guarantee they will not get a good deal in relation to other major market NBA teams. It should also be noted that Sacramento is a top 25 media market. Granted it's not #2 but it is still a large market.

*Disclaimer: I still have a residence and spent the last ten years in Sacramento but I do think the Kings are leaving.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

If they move, it's gotta be right up there for record of most relocations in pro sports, no? Rochester to Cincinnati to Kansas City (and kind of Omaha) to Sacramento to Anaheim.

[bosrs1]

If they move, it's gotta be right up there for record of most relocations in pro sports, no? Rochester to Cincinnati to Kansas City (and kind of Omaha) to Sacramento to Anaheim.

I don't think it's "up there", I think it would be the record.

[CJR]

If they move, it's gotta be right up there for record of most relocations in pro sports, no? Rochester to Cincinnati to Kansas City (and kind of Omaha) to Sacramento to Anaheim.

I don't think it's "up there", I think it would be the record.

Depends on if you only count times the team changed it's name as moving, and whether temporary locations count, whether moving back to a previous city counts...

Hartford Whalers / Carolina Hurricanes:

Boston -> West Springfield -> Hartford -> Springfield -> Hartford -> Greensboro -> Raleigh

[Brian in Boston]

If they move, it's gotta be right up there for record of most relocations in pro sports, no? Rochester to Cincinnati to Kansas City (and kind of Omaha) to Sacramento to Anaheim.

I don't think it's "up there", I think it would be the record.

As of right now, the Royals/Kings and Blackhawks/Hawks have relocated the most times amongst NBA franchises.

Royals/Kings

Rochester Royals

Cincinnati Royals

Kansas City Kings

Sacramento Kings

Blackhawks/Hawks

Tri-Cities Blackhawks

Milwaukee Hawks

St. Louis Hawks

Atlanta Hawks

[B-Rich]

If they move, it's gotta be right up there for record of most relocations in pro sports, no? Rochester to Cincinnati to Kansas City (and kind of Omaha) to Sacramento to Anaheim.

I don't think it's "up there", I think it would be the record.

Depends on if you only count times the team changed it's name as moving, and whether temporary locations count, whether moving back to a previous city counts...

New England Whalers / Hartford Whalers / Carolina Hurricanes:

Boston -> West Springfield -> Hartford -> Springfield -> Hartford -> Greensboro -> Raleigh

added one more you forgot....

[loogodude90]

If they move, it's gotta be right up there for record of most relocations in pro sports, no? Rochester to Cincinnati to Kansas City (and kind of Omaha) to Sacramento to Anaheim.

I don't think it's "up there", I think it would be the record.

Depends on if you only count times the team changed it's name as moving, and whether temporary locations count, whether moving back to a previous city counts...

Hartford Whalers / Carolina Hurricanes:

Boston -> West Springfield -> Hartford -> Springfield -> Hartford -> Greensboro -> Raleigh

I think we're only counting the team actually changing the location in its name when moving, otherwise there's going to be too many teams to count.

[RETROJR79]

Tonight game will be emotional for the Kings.

Even though I bleed Lakers purple I want the Kings to win this for their fans.

[NatsFan2004]

FYI, the Lakers' owner is on the relocation committee that will oversee any possible Kings move:

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/4/13/2108601/sacramento-kings-relocation-jerry-buss-lakers

I think the question is, would he rather try to gum up the move by pushing the committee to turn the Maloofs down, or would he prefer to lay the hammer on them via an astronomical relocation fee? (And then, if option #2, do the Maloofs have enough cash to pay the fee?)

[pmoehrin]

I think the Kings are gone from Sacramento and I think its for reasons that are almost identical to what happened with the Sonics.

Build me a new arena or I'm gone. At best I feel that is a very morally questionable reason for a city to lose their team and I feel that the major media sites such as ESPN really drop the ball on covering it. My view on it is that it isn't a reason for a team to leave. The support the fans give by coming out to the stadium/arena and watching on TV should be enough. I don't think Sacramento or any other city owes a pro sports team any more then that. Why they ask for these arenas/stadiums and how they are able to get them I feel is a far more realtive subject for congress to be talking about then steroids. Why are we spending billions of dollars in what are essentially subsidies on an industry that produces very little both in terms of finances and tangable value? That's a question that needs to be asked and talked about far more often, and again I really feel like the major media outlets are dropping the ball on this issue.

I know the Lakers and Clippers won't be happy with the move, but push comes to shove the NBA values an owner's freedom to move if the city doesen't want to build a new stadium over territory rights. I'm sure they will find a way to make it worth it for Jerry Buss and Donald Sterling to at least be willing to not put too much of a fuss over it, which from what I can tell at least they really haven't made a fuss over it. My initial guess would be that the Clippers aren't going to be in LA for much longer, and the NBA will look to move them to a monster market (think Vegas, London, Paris) in exchange for allowing the Kings to come into the LA metro area. Again it's a guess or mine, nothing more then that, and I'm not really going to defend it too much. I'll just say that I think the NBA having teams over in Europe in going to happen sooner then later. The markets are just too valuable to pass up even with the difficulties of having teams spread out across mutliple continents.

[BaltimoreNewYorkGirl]

move the Kings to Boise. name them the Royals and be done with it

[Sodboy13]

move the Kings to Boise. name them the Royals and be done with it

Fine, I'll bite. Why?

[BaltimoreNewYorkGirl]

move the Kings to Boise. name them the Royals and be done with it

Fine, I'll bite. Why?

Idaho needs a pro team. Boise is the Capital of Idaho. so move the Kings there.

[Gothamite]

I think the Kings are gone from Sacramento and I think its for reasons that are almost identical to what happened with the Sonics.

There's one huge difference between the two - the Sonics were moved in no small part because the NBA desperately wanted a team in Oklahoma City. No analogous situation exists here.