Bye Bye Kings, Hello Royals

[omnivore]

I agree completely, it's just I feel like three teams in one market is too much. If the Kings/Royals, Lakers, and Clippers are all there, who would be the odd man out? I'm pretty sure it's the Clippers.

Odd man out would be the Anaheim team. Just ask the Angels.

Not as many television dollars unless they can lay claim to Los Angeles, and the Kings/Royals have the misfortune of moving to LA right when the Clippers are finally worth watching.

The Lakers are moving to their own network in a year. The Clippers have a TV deal with Prime Ticket (As do the Dodgers). This leaves over the air television with Los Angeles basketball after next season, a deal worth at least $13m a year. It's part of what's making this move work so well timing wise, in addition to the aforementioned reasons.

[Gothamite]

Maybe for the first year, but if the Royals can't draw numbers, that $13M will dry up and they'll be looking at much smaller numbers.

Ask Arte Moreno - the perception that the Angels were an OC-only team was holding back the amount they were able to get for their television rights. The Royals will have to show they can pull in audience from all over LA to get a decent deal.

[omnivore]

Maybe for the first year, but if the Royals can't draw numbers, that $13M will dry up and they'll be looking at much smaller numbers.

Ask Arte Moreno - the perception that the Angels were an OC-only team was holding back the amount they were able to get for their television rights. The Royals will have to show they can pull in audience from all over LA to get a decent deal.

The Angels situation is different than this one for a host of reasons most notably a local team trying to brand itself regionally and seen as illegitimate. I don't think the Royals would be dumb enough to sell themselves as an LA team, but as an OC team, but the TV market is the same so they benefit.

The Royals will cover the void of over-the-air TV because the Clippers deal doesn't end for several more years and the Lakers are leaving. Even if they got a cut rate amount of say, $9-10mm per year, that's still a premium when you consider there are no other NBA alternatives for the over-the-air channels, but it works perfectly for a new team trying to establish itself in the region over a period of time. TV deals aren't negotiated year to year, though, so there's no danger in the value dropping and the move by the Lakers has caused quite the over-the-air ripple. It creates a void they'll want to fill, even if the Royals won't be very good to start and again, a cut rate deal will be an incentive for both parties.

I realize everyone wants to hate this move because the bounty of riches of an established area getting a third team offends. But it doesn't matter. The economics of this make more sense than the team staying in Sacramento and if it didn't, the Maloofs wouldn't be doing it with the other options on the table. Even I think it'd be logical for them to move back to Kansas City or to Seattle were there a new arena there. But if the owners have a vested interest in being close to Vegas and live in Los Angeles and they decide the losses in Sacramento are too great to continue, seems moving your team that you're committed to never selling to where you live -- with an arena desperate for an NBA tenant -- is the next best option for you, even if people don't see the logic of the decision from fan glasses.

[The_Admiral]

They can! They'll have one guy watching in Ventura, they'll have another watching in Anaheim, and a third guy watching in San Juan Capistrano. Success!

[illwauk]

Throwback name to go along with throwback everything?

Great move! The creativity in multi-million dollar sports teams never ceases to amaze me.

Why do something new when you can just copy from the past?

Lazy bastards. Oh well, I don't care about the NBA anyways so I'm unaffected. Just a continuation of the naseuating theme of throwbacks, this being a name throwback no less, regardless of the sport.

This post is dumb. The franchise has either been named the royals or kings every city they've been in and the history goes back to the early days of the NBA. To change away from that would be to toss away a lot of history.

Yeah, and what a prestigious history it has been. So what.

They're an original NBA franchise with roots that pre-date the league by almost three decades. We're not exactly talking about the Charlotte Bobcats, here.

Again, so what. Heaven forbid one of these eternally mediocre franchises grows some balls and comes up with an original look someday, and leaves their useless, uneventful history in the rear view mirror.

Oh what valuable insight you've been blessing this forum with. I suppose you also think the Statue of Liberty should be redesigned since hasn't welcomed large swaths of immigrants to America for over 50 years.

[Gothamite]

Maybe for the first year, but if the Royals can't draw numbers, that $13M will dry up and they'll be looking at much smaller numbers.

Ask Arte Moreno - the perception that the Angels were an OC-only team was holding back the amount they were able to get for their television rights. The Royals will have to show they can pull in audience from all over LA to get a decent deal.

The Angels situation is different than this one for a host of reasons most notably a local team trying to brand itself regionally and seen as illegitimate. I don't think the Royals would be dumb enough to sell themselves as an LA team, but as an OC team, but the TV market is the same so they benefit.

No, I'm sorry, you didn't understand what I wrote. The team wasn't bringing in large television contracts until the rebranding. Far from being "seen as illigitimate", it worked. The Los Angeles Angels' television revenue went up from $12M a year to $50M.

Being seen as "an OC team" was killing the Angels. Why should it be any different for the Royals, in terms of television contracts?

And how is $13M/year such great shakes anyway, if even the Clippers went looking for a "substantially bigger" payday on cable? Not to mention that the Lakers were getting $30M/year before this new Time Warner deal. $13M isn't going to help them compete in a pretty crowded market.

[omnivore]

Compared to Sacramento it will. They're not trying to compete. They're just trying to stop losing as much money or they'd move someplace more sensible.

[Gothamite]

LA already has a basketball team that's just trying to make as much money as possible, on-court results be damned.

This business model sounds like a very good receipe for disaster.

[bosrs1]

I agree completely, it's just I feel like three teams in one market is too much. If the Kings/Royals, Lakers, and Clippers are all there, who would be the odd man out? I'm pretty sure it's the Clippers.

Odd man out would be the Anaheim team. Just ask the Angels.

Not as many television dollars unless they can lay claim to Los Angeles, and the Kings/Royals have the misfortune of moving to LA right when the Clippers are finally worth watching.

The Clippers are an injury to Blake Griffin away from being right back where they started. And even then they're still a far below 500 team.

[Gothamite]

Of course - the Clippers' position is very tenuous. But that doesn't make the Kings/Royals' position any the stronger.

[Lights Out]

The Clippers still would have Eric Gordon and DeAndre Jordan even with Blake injured. They'd be okay. The Kings have the extremely-immature DeMarcus Cousins, the fading Tyreke Evans, and NOBODY else. They're a rudderless franchise.

[yh]

I suppose you also think the Statue of Liberty should be redesigned since hasn't welcomed large swaths of immigrants to America for over 50 years.

Funny you should mention that . . .

[guest23]

Maybe for the first year, but if the Royals can't draw numbers, that $13M will dry up and they'll be looking at much smaller numbers.

Ask Arte Moreno - the perception that the Angels were an OC-only team was holding back the amount they were able to get for their television rights. The Royals will have to show they can pull in audience from all over LA to get a decent deal.

The Angels situation is different than this one for a host of reasons most notably a local team trying to brand itself regionally and seen as illegitimate. I don't think the Royals would be dumb enough to sell themselves as an LA team, but as an OC team, but the TV market is the same so they benefit.

The Royals will cover the void of over-the-air TV because the Clippers deal doesn't end for several more years and the Lakers are leaving. Even if they got a cut rate amount of say, $9-10mm per year, that's still a premium when you consider there are no other NBA alternatives for the over-the-air channels, but it works perfectly for a new team trying to establish itself in the region over a period of time. TV deals aren't negotiated year to year, though, so there's no danger in the value dropping and the move by the Lakers has caused quite the over-the-air ripple. It creates a void they'll want to fill, even if the Royals won't be very good to start and again, a cut rate deal will be an incentive for both parties.

I realize everyone wants to hate this move because the bounty of riches of an established area getting a third team offends. But it doesn't matter. The economics of this make more sense than the team staying in Sacramento and if it didn't, the Maloofs wouldn't be doing it with the other options on the table. Even I think it'd be logical for them to move back to Kansas City or to Seattle were there a new arena there. But if the owners have a vested interest in being close to Vegas and live in Los Angeles and they decide the losses in Sacramento are too great to continue, seems moving your team that you're committed to never selling to where you live -- with an arena desperate for an NBA tenant -- is the next best option for you, even if people don't see the logic of the decision from fan glasses.

I don't see this deal working out for the long haul...it's an expedient quick fix to a chunk of the maloof's financial woes but 3 teams in socal doesn't make sense in the long term...in addition the honeymoon effect will wear off in terms of home attendance withing 5 years if they aren't consistently in the playoffs...lastly I think they are overestimating the amount of corporate wealth available in oc to bring in as incremental revenue vs. sac town...personally I think this will be a temporary move for the maloof's to inflate the value of the club (larger media market) before selling it to pay off their casino debts.

[The_Admiral]

I think they are overestimating the amount of corporate wealth available in oc to bring in as incremental revenue vs. sac town...personally I think this will be a temporary move for the maloof's to inflate the value of the club (larger media market) before selling it to pay off their casino debts.

Bingo. Between two clubs with surely aggressive sales teams who share an arena built specifically for extracting more big bucks out of more people than ever before, I have to think that anyone who wants to do big business with the NBA is doing big business with the NBA.

[C's]

Throwback name to go along with throwback everything?

Great move! The creativity in multi-million dollar sports teams never ceases to amaze me.

Why do something new when you can just copy from the past?

Lazy bastards. Oh well, I don't care about the NBA anyways so I'm unaffected. Just a continuation of the naseuating theme of throwbacks, this being a name throwback no less, regardless of the sport.

This post is dumb. The franchise has either been named the royals or kings every city they've been in and the history goes back to the early days of the NBA. To change away from that would be to toss away a lot of history.

Yeah, and what a prestigious history it has been. So what.

They're an original NBA franchise with roots that pre-date the league by almost three decades. We're not exactly talking about the Charlotte Bobcats, here.

Again, so what. Heaven forbid one of these eternally mediocre franchises grows some balls and comes up with an original look someday, and leaves their useless, uneventful history in the rear view mirror.

Oh what valuable insight you've been blessing this forum with. I suppose you also think the Statue of Liberty should be redesigned since hasn't welcomed large swaths of immigrants to America for over 50 years.

Awesome. Me refusing to dry-hump some sports team's completely useless, unimportant and uneventful history has just been compared to someone wanting to tear down the statue of liberty just because.

I don't think I'll be taking you seriously.

[TalktoChuck]

I'd hardly call a founding member of the league's history useless, or unimportant. Granted the first half of their existence was a lot more eventful than the second half, but that doesn't mean the team is useless and unimportant. Just beacuse you weren't (maybe you were, who knows) alive to see the franchise in it's glory years doesn't mean they haven't had a good history. Saying the Sacramento Kings are a useless and unimportant to the NBA is like saying the Pittsburgh Pirates are unimportant to the MLB. While they may not contribute much now-a-days they still have played an integral part in the history of the league.

[FiddySicks]

So, now Sacramento is part of the Bay Area? Have any of you even been to California?

[LetsGoOakland9]

The Clippers still would have Eric Gordon and DeAndre Jordan even with Blake injured. They'd be okay. The Kings have the extremely-immature DeMarcus Cousins, the fading Tyreke Evans, and NOBODY else. They're a rudderless franchise.

Cousins > Jordan

Evans > Gordan

and I wouldn't consider Marcus Thornton a NOBODY

[C's]

So, now Sacramento is part of the Bay Area? Have any of you even been to California?

It's close enough.

[omnivore]

I'd hardly call a founding member of the league's history useless, or unimportant. Granted the first half of their existence was a lot more eventful than the second half, but that doesn't mean the team is useless and unimportant. Just beacuse you weren't (maybe you were, who knows) alive to see the franchise in it's glory years doesn't mean they haven't had a good history. Saying the Sacramento Kings are a useless and unimportant to the NBA is like saying the Pittsburgh Pirates are unimportant to the MLB. While they may not contribute much now-a-days they still have played an integral part in the history of the league.

The Oakland Athletics would be a better example since they've moved so much. But the Pirates never moved. The Kings history isn't really relevant because of all of the city changes and the fact that halfway through moving about the country, they changed their nickname. They're not a team revered for their storied history, even though they've been a consistent part of the NBA. We value that continuity now in a way that leagues didn't when teams like the Dodgers and Lakers moved.

I guess maybe the name back to the Royals will allow them to put up some retired numbers and a championship banner (a la the revived Ottawa Senators, who just raised banners, but still) so maybe that's cool in a backwards way.