Anaheim Kings?

[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 briefly 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.

Good point made even more true by Cincinnati's voting patterns.

[IceCap]

*Lights Out claiming teams are worse then the Clippers*

You're right, the sports is mostly a "what have you done for us lately?" business. The problem with your arguments? At least the Islanders, Kings, Pirates, and Marlins have done something at some point. The Clippers haven't done anything in the past, and have yet to do anything in the present. So in the grand scheme of things those franchises are still ahead of the Clippers.

[Drakonius26]

*Lights Out claiming teams are worse then the Clippers*

You're right, the sports is mostly a "what have you done for us lately?" business. The problem with your arguments? At least the Islanders, Kings, Pirates, and Marlins have done something at some point. The Clippers haven't done anything in the past, and have yet to do anything in the present. So in the grand scheme of things those franchises are still ahead of the Clippers.

I'll give him this... while one might question Lights Out's sanity with being a Clipper fan, no one can doubt his loyalty towards the Clippers. I find it admirable that he remains such a fan through years and years of botched draft picks, and 20-win seasons.

Then again, I know what it was like to be a Tigers fan back in the late 1990's and early 2000's... at least we had 1984 to hang our hat on. Still do.

[Lights Out]

*Lights Out claiming teams are worse then the Clippers*

You're right, the sports is mostly a "what have you done for us lately?" business. The problem with your arguments? At least the Islanders, Kings, Pirates, and Marlins have done something at some point. The Clippers haven't done anything in the past, and have yet to do anything in the present. So in the grand scheme of things those franchises are still ahead of the Clippers.

Except my argument was that in the past decade, the Clippers have improved and are no longer the worst franchise. Out of the teams I mentioned, only one (the Marlins in '03) have won a championship, and they wrecked that by having another post-championship fire sale. Additionally, several of those franchises have messed-up financial situations, which makes them prime candidates for relocation or contraction. At least the Clippers stay profitable.

If you want to look at it historically, then yeah, the Clippers are the worst franchise in sports. But to rebut that point, the Browns have won 8 championships - two more than the Steelers. But nobody ever says that the Browns are a better franchise than the Steelers, because the Browns' last championship was in 1964, whereas the Steelers' last championship was in 2008. The Steelers have done more lately. Public perception of a franchise's quality changes with the times.

Similarly, when people look at the Clippers now, they see a team on the rise with young stars (Griffin, Gordon, DJ), not the "same old Clippers" who never resigned their players and practiced in a public gym. Perception has started to turn already - I haven't seen the phrase "It's the Clippers" in an article in months - and with a playoff run, I think we'll stop hearing about the stupid Clipper Curse forever.

[Drakonius26]

You'll need more than just a one-year playoff run, like they did in 2006. Not to mention, you'll need to string together multiple playoff appearances and at least get to the Finals, before the Clipper Curse will no longer be present in the minds of sports fans.

[Gothamite]

You'll need more than a playoff run, like they did in 2006. Not to mention, you'll need to string together multiple playoff appearances and at least get to the Finals, before the Clipper Curse will no longer be present in the minds of sports fans.

Exactly. A couple years of "not outright sucking" isn't enough to override the Clippers' long history. This could be a small blip, and thirty years from now it'll long be forgotten.

[Lights Out]

Well, I meant to say a DEEP playoff run, but you're right, it will probably take a couple.

But again, public perception of a franchise's quality changes with the times. If this era of the Clippers turns out to be a small blip, then down the road, the public will turn on them again. But my point is that public opinion of the Clippers is becoming more positive right now. I can't predict the future, but I'm not arguing about the future.

[Drakonius26]

That's very true. I mean, just look at the Patriots prior to 2001. Controversy aside, they were rumored to be leaving New England for Hartford, and St. Louis back in the early 1990's, had a few good playoff runs but nothing sustained. Now look at them... they're one of the premier franchises in all of sports, not just the NFL. The same could happen to the Clippers, but try not to hype yourself too much for this season. The Clippers are no lock to even make the playoffs, possibly nothing more than a eighth-seed at best. You'll need to make even greater steps in 2012, if you want to become one of the elite teams in the west, not to mention keep Blake Griffin long-term. The way, the NBA is now, he might join up with Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook in Oklahoma City to start up their own version of "The Big Three."

God, I'm sick of that phrase already.

[Lights Out]

Controversy aside, they were rumored to be leaving New England for Hartford

When did Connecticut get kicked out of New England?

God, I'm sick of that phrase already.

Well, you can thank your Spurs and Celtics for the dawn of the "Big Three."

[Drakonius26]

Controversy aside, they were rumored to be leaving New England for Hartford

When did Connecticut get kicked out of New England?

God, I'm sick of that phrase already.

Well, you can thank your Spurs and Celtics for the dawn of the "Big Three."

They would've been re-branded as the Hartford Patriots... no offense to Hartford, but that whole name/identity sucks. By the way, we all know that the state of Connecticut is just a subdivision of New York City.

I love the Spurs, not the Celtics. that Boston team.

[Lights Out]

My bad. Since you're a Pats and Bruins fan, I just assumed you liked the Celtics too.

And yes, the Celtics.

[IceCap]

*Lights Out claiming teams are worse then the Clippers*

You're right, the sports is mostly a "what have you done for us lately?" business. The problem with your arguments? At least the Islanders, Kings, Pirates, and Marlins have done something at some point. The Clippers haven't done anything in the past, and have yet to do anything in the present. So in the grand scheme of things those franchises are still ahead of the Clippers.

Except my argument was that in the past decade, the Clippers have improved and are no longer the worst franchise. Out of the teams I mentioned, only one (the Marlins in '03) have won a championship, and they wrecked that by having another post-championship fire sale. Additionally, several of those franchises have messed-up financial situations, which makes them prime candidates for relocation or contraction. At least the Clippers stay profitable.

If you want to look at it historically, then yeah, the Clippers are the worst franchise in sports. But to rebut that point, the Browns have won 8 championships - two more than the Steelers. But nobody ever says that the Browns are a better franchise than the Steelers, because the Browns' last championship was in 1964, whereas the Steelers' last championship was in 2008. The Steelers have done more lately. Public perception of a franchise's quality changes with the times.

Similarly, when people look at the Clippers now, they see a team on the rise with young stars (Griffin, Gordon, DJ), not the "same old Clippers" who never resigned their players and practiced in a public gym. Perception has started to turn already - I haven't seen the phrase "It's the Clippers" in an article in months - and with a playoff run, I think we'll stop hearing about the stupid Clipper Curse forever.

For the last time, AAFC championships do not count. The Browns have four NFL championships, the Steelers have six. The AFL was a legitimate league with real competition, AFL championships mean/meant something. The AAFC wasn't a league, just the Browns and seven teams of scrubs.

If you're looking at things historically then the Clippers are probably the worst.

You're free to look at the last decade if you want, but it's rather disingenuous. Sports is primarily a "what have you done for us lately?" business, but that doesn't make past success (or failure) irrelevant. You can't honestly judge teams from their performances in the past decade and not factor in the team's legacy from before that. You can't pick a random ten year stretch of time in a team's history and examine it in a bubble when trying to determine "which franchise is worst?"

You have to judge the franchise's entire existence if you want to be serious about answering the "who's worst?" question.

The Pittsburgh Pirates, Sacramento Kings, Florida Marlins, and New York Islanders are all in terrible shape at the moment, but those franchises do have past glories to fall back on. The Clippers are not only bad now, they've always been bad. A Kings fan can always say "hey at least my team won the NBA Championship, there was a point when they weren't a joke." Clippers fans cannot say that.

This could all change with a NBA Championship, so I'll be happy to revise my opinion on the matter then. Until then, however, it's the same old Clippers.

[Drakonius26]

My bad. Since you're a Pats and Bruins fan, I just assumed you liked the Celtics too.

And yes, the Celtics.

No, they're the only Boston team I hate. Mostly due to the fact they started this trend of grabbing three all-stars from less-fortunate teams in exchange for a sack of magic beans. It's not the Spurs fault they know how to draft good players in the form of Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili. One could say that they've been the only real Big Three, after the Bird/McHale/Parish-Era ended in the late 1980's/early 1990's. They never had to resort to pillaging retarded General Managers for their treasure.

[omnivore]

The Maloofs live in LA when they aren't in Vegas. They don't want to sell the team and they don't want to move to Kansas City because they live in LA and Vegas, so for them it's out of the way and they'd prefer not to do it is what they've said. So while it's logical from the perspective of a fan, moving to Los Angeles is a bigger market -- even as 3rd banana -- than Sacramento or Kansas City and it's ideal for them because it lets them stay in their own neighborhood to get games. It also minimizes their losses, the Ducks owner gives them a sweetheart deal and the NBA moves its third team into its second venue in the region.

Also, with traffic...the drive from the OC to Los Angeles is akin to driving from Philly to Newark. Even if they played to an empty Honda Center every night, the Maloofs would lose less money in Anaheim than in Sacto. If Vegas was viable, they'd be making that move..but it's not and they don't want to move to the midwest where they're unfamiliar simply because they have a new arena. Even though I think everyone agrees that'd make the most sense.

[BrianVlietDesign]

I'll be honest, I'm rooting for an Anaheim move. Why? I have no idea, really. Maybe because I'm a Ducks fan and love So Cal clubs. If the Kings move to Anaheim from Sacramento, I might honestly start getting more into basketball than I have for several years. Even if they suck for a while, I'm in. Me, being a Virginian, I can't support the Wizards. They blow year in and year out. And let's face it, they ain't the Bullets I loved. As for the Bobcats, I just see no hope in that franchise moving forward. The only NBA team I could see myself supporting is an Anaheim club. And why? I have no idea. I just want to see a team there.

Maybe that sounds stupid, but what do I know.

[loogodude90]

Me, being a Virginian, I can't support the Wizards. They blow year in and year out. And let's face it, they ain't the Bullets I loved.

Not to get too far off topic, and I don't know how old you are, but which Bullets team did you "love"? The one-and-done 1997 winless playoff run? I don't see how anyone under the age of like 30 can have liked the Bullets and better than the Wizards, considering the Wizards at least made the playoffs 4 straight years in the 2000's.

[oddball]

An Anaheim move would be an epic failure for the Kings or any other NBA team. I hate to bring this up, but Anaheim is a fiercely loyal Lakers market and has been years. I'm not talking 5-10 years, I'm talking 30-40 years. Another NBA team would only have support, when the Lakers or maybe another good NBA team came to town, say Miami or Boston. Other than that it would be years and years of non-support. The Maloofs can complain all they want about their arena in Sacramento, but they have no clue as to what a failure would be moving their team to Anaheim. Let's not forget that the Lakers and Kings had some bitter battles in the late 90's and early 2000's and Laker fans in and around Anaheim will not support the franchise once called the Sacramento Kings. Let's realize the Maloofs hate the Lakers and would love to get a bit of their territory. Their dreaming. Their season ticket base will be about what the Anaheim Arsenal was and that was what maybe 200 people if that? If you're going to move some place, then you better do your market research and not sit on a fantasy. The Maloofs are living a fantasy thinking that moving to Anaheim is actually an option.

[FiddySicks]

What's all this trash I keep reading about how impossible the trek is from Orange County to the Staples Center? I lived in Costa Mesa for awhile and went to to many Clippers, Lakers, Kings, and even Dodgers games and found the commute to be one of the easiest I've ever made. Minus the parking lots at Dodgers Stadium I was to and from nearly every game in an hour or less. Hell, even going to the Rose Bowl on January 1st was a fairly easy commute.

As for the Kings possibly leaving Sacramento, good riddance.

[FiddySicks]

double

[The Six]

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.

Yup. It's completely illogical to move from the center of the NBA in Staples Center and LA to go to Anaheim.

What's all this trash I keep reading about how impossible the trek is from Orange County to the Staples Center? I lived in Costa Mesa for awhile and went to to many Clippers, Lakers, Kings, and even Dodgers games and found the commute to be one of the easiest I've ever made. Minus the parking lots at Dodgers Stadium I was to and from nearly every game in an hour or less. Hell, even going to the Rose Bowl on January 1st was a fairly easy commute.

Kind sir, could you please share your secret of teleportation with us?