Interesting Article Regarding Sacramento Kings' Situation

[hailstateunis]

I don't see why the Clippers don't move to Anahiem. ( There must be a reason or else someone ales would've mentioned it by now.)

[Lights Out]

They were going to in the mid-'90s and even played a few games at Arrowhead Pond. But then the Staples Center got built and the Clippers decided to move in there instead.

[bosrs1]

I don't see why the Clippers don't move to Anahiem. ( There must be a reason or else someone ales would've mentioned it by now.)

Simple, Sterling. He doesn't want to spend 3 hours each way in traffic driving from his home to The Honda Center. Staples is much closer to him and his cronies.

[The_Admiral]

No one ever volunteers one's own team for contraction.

Different sport, but that scumbag Pohlad did, in Minnesota.

I suspect you'll find other owners willing to take a buyout from the NBA. It's easier than finding a buyer, and could well result in a higher price.

Oh, I was just talking about fans who think contraction is a good idea. It's never "they need to contract two teams. Start with mine!"

[DG_ThenNowForever]

To be honest, you could contract the Mariners and no one would really notice. I'd be annoyed at the waste of a giant stadium, but baseball would move on.

In the NBA no one knows that the Bucks or Bobcats exist. If you needed to cut two, there you go. The Clippers wouldn't be a bad idea either, the last couple years notwithstanding.

[Lights Out]

If there were a genuine reason to contract the Clippers (as in, not "LOLZ ITZ DUH CLIPURZ DEY SUK") and there were no other viable options to rectify the situation, I'd be disappointed but understanding. But it seems the most common reasons I see for any team when this topic comes up is based on stereotypes and team performance, not fan support and fiscal stability, which is what really matters.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

They're stable based on circumstances and not by their own doing. A Donald Sterling-managed team in almost any other market would have failed long ago. He's coasted for a generation by mooching off of the Lakers' success. His team should be contracted on general principle.

[DarkJourney]

If there were a genuine reason to contract the Clippers (as in, not "LOLZ ITZ DUH CLIPURZ DEY SUK") and there were no other viable options to rectify the situation, I'd be disappointed but understanding. But it seems the most common reasons I see for any team when this topic comes up is based on stereotypes and team performance, not fan support and fiscal stability, which is what really matters.

or get a rise out of you.

Go Clippers!

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Clippers are OK. They got decent support even when they sucked. My only gripe is that I hate the idea of having 2 teams represent the exact same area, let alone the same arena (eg. Giants and Jets. One should be in Manhattan, one in Queens/Brooklyn/Jersey). I do know that being in the Staples Center generates alot of profit for the Clips, so it's understandable from a business stand-point.

[Gothamite]

At least the Giants and Jets represent different conferences, meaning that New Yorkers get to see a different parade of teams come to town, two different divisional races, etc. The Lakers and Clippers represent the same city in the exact same division, which always seemed odd to me.

[bosrs1]

At least the Giants and Jets represent different conferences, meaning that New Yorkers get to see a different parade of teams come to town, two different divisional races, etc. The Lakers and Clippers represent the same city in the exact same division, which always seemed odd to me.

Well that and with football there really is no legitimate reason to build two football stadiums in the same region anymore with their price tags well over 1 billion dollars (this is the same problem the Raiders are now grappling with in the SF Bay Area). With basketball in general, arenas are not only cheaper, they're much more versatile and useful to a community that a seldom used football venue. And with the Clippers in particular there's several venues they could have alternately chosen from rather than moving in with the Lakers, most obviously the Honda Center, which would have maintained them having their own slightly separate area to draw from. But the Clippers have not been a normal sports team in decades, they've always been Donald Sterling's plaything since the day he bought them in San Diego.

[Gothamite]

the Clippers have not been a normal sports team in decades, they've always been Donald Sterling's plaything since the day he bought them in San Diego.

All sports teams are to an extent the plaything of their owners, but you're right that he's taken them to new heights.

The only similar owner that springs to mind is Alex Spanos, who for years knew that Charger fans preferred the throwback uniforms, and who bought that merchandise in droves, but essentially said "I don't care, navy is my thing." But even he wouldn't run his team the way Sterling has run his.

[walby2]

If there were a genuine reason to contract the Clippers (as in, not "LOLZ ITZ DUH CLIPURZ DEY SUK") and there were no other viable options to rectify the situation, I'd be disappointed but understanding. But it seems the most common reasons I see for any team when this topic comes up is based on stereotypes and team performance, not fan support and fiscal stability, which is what really matters.

Having the Clippers in LA is awesome for Donald Sterling who gets the profits and ego gratification he desires, but is of no benefit whatsoever to the league. No one could argue that the market is not well served by the Lakers on their own, who are of course one of the most dominant teams in NBA history.

Sterling basically runs the team like a slumlord runs an apartment building. i.e., do the bare minimum possible to keep the thing operational (Chris Paul and Blake Griffin notwithstanding), and just keep the profits. Given Sterling's demonstrated lack of commitment to developing a winning team (despite having the means to do so), it's pretty clear that the team is just a moneymaking plaything for him. There is no question that LA is a big enough market to support two teams, but I don't think that should be the sole measuring stick for whether it is a good idea to do so.

Basically, Sterling runs the Clippers the way Harold Ballard ran the Maple Leafs, and that's an embarrassment. The NBA is just lucky that the Clippers are in the Lakers shadow so no one really pays much attention to what's going on there.

The NBA would be better off if the Clippers moved to an underserved region. Even San Diego or Anaheim would be an improvement. But as we know, that won't happen. Too bad for the league.

[tBBP]

Good gosh...this thread was started about the Kings...and has been straight clipperjacked ever since.

What the dam* hell??

[bosrs1]

If there were a genuine reason to contract the Clippers (as in, not "LOLZ ITZ DUH CLIPURZ DEY SUK") and there were no other viable options to rectify the situation, I'd be disappointed but understanding. But it seems the most common reasons I see for any team when this topic comes up is based on stereotypes and team performance, not fan support and fiscal stability, which is what really matters.

Having the Clippers in LA is awesome for Donald Sterling who gets the profits and ego gratification he desires, but is of no benefit whatsoever to the league. No one could argue that the market is not well served by the Lakers on their own, who are of course one of the most dominant teams in NBA history.

Sterling basically runs the team like a slumlord runs an apartment building. i.e., do the bare minimum possible to keep the thing operational (Chris Paul and Blake Griffin notwithstanding), and just keep the profits. Given Sterling's demonstrated lack of commitment to developing a winning team (despite having the means to do so), it's pretty clear that the team is just a moneymaking plaything for him. There is no question that LA is a big enough market to support two teams, but I don't think that should be the sole measuring stick for whether it is a good idea to do so.

Basically, Sterling runs the Clippers the way Harold Ballard ran the Maple Leafs, and that's an embarrassment. The NBA is just lucky that the Clippers are in the Lakers shadow so no one really pays much attention to what's going on there.

The NBA would be better off if the Clippers moved to an underserved region. Even San Diego or Anaheim would be an improvement. But as we know, that won't happen. Too bad for the league.

Honestly I'm not sure the league would be better served by them moving to Anaheim or San Diego. They'd arguably make less money in either location due to the sweetheart deal on the lease they have at Staples. And while they might expand the NBA footprint slightly by moving, it's not like they're doing bad in both attendance and viewership right where they are despite Sterling's lack of effort. Griffin and Paul have just made them even more profitable for both Sterling and the league. While their situation is far from ideal, the Clippers are unfortunately not one of the NBA's larger problems. They're profitable, they're relatively popular, and they have stable ownership (even if a slumlord). Moving to Anaheim or San Diego wouldn't improve any of those metrics and might even make them worse.

That's part of why the Maloofs, despite being douchebags, had a half decent argument for moving the Kings to Anaheim last year. LA could really support 3 teams given that both the Lakers and Clippers are so well supported by the folks mainly just around the downtown core. OC residents do remain under served by both LA teams and remain a relatively untapped market. Not to mention Anaheim's potential to draw from points south all the way down to San Diego.

As for the Kings moving chances this year, it seems like the Maloofs may try for Anaheim again, and fail this spring (since Stern has said they won't approve a move there). After that who knows. As long as the Maloofs maintain that they want to own the team Seattle isn't happening since Hansen wants control of a team. And even if he takes control he'll need to do so AFTER he's agreed to build an arena, not before since the NBA will never grant Seattle a move until they have an arena. Not to mention if the Kings ever become available for sale there's no guarantee Hansen will get control since there are local Sac buyers like Burkle waiting to buy them and keep them in Sac. So while the Kings situation may seem dire, it's not nearly as dire as it looks. A lot still has to happen and go wrong for the Kings to end up in Seattle.

[Lights Out]

At least the Giants and Jets represent different conferences, meaning that New Yorkers get to see a different parade of teams come to town, two different divisional races, etc. The Lakers and Clippers represent the same city in the exact same division, which always seemed odd to me.

Well, the same thing is going to happen in the Eastern Conference now with the Knicks and Nets. The Islanders and Rangers are also in the same conference and division. Not really unheard of, honestly.

[TheOldRoman]

The Islanders and Rangers are appealing to different fans from different regions. The Clippers essential appeal to people from LA who couldn't get Lakers tickets.

[bosrs1]

At least the Giants and Jets represent different conferences, meaning that New Yorkers get to see a different parade of teams come to town, two different divisional races, etc. The Lakers and Clippers represent the same city in the exact same division, which always seemed odd to me.

Well, the same thing is going to happen in the Eastern Conference now with the Knicks and Nets. The Islanders and Rangers are also in the same conference and division. Not really unheard of, honestly.

But both NY situations you mention are different. The Islanders represent Long Island, the Ranger the city. The Nets will be representing Brooklyn, the Knicks represent Manhattan and arguably the rest of the boroughs (plus their long time fans in Brooklyn), the fact they have different city names highlights this. The Clippers and Lakers represent the exact same area. There is no differentiation geographically, particularly since they both moved into Staples Center. Add in the fact the lack of league/conference/division differentiation and it's a very unique and unsual situation. There's always something that differentiates teams be it geography, league, conference, etc...

[IceCap]

Cut

-Toronto (just a joke of a franchise)

Between the decent attendance figures and the financial stability that comes with being owned by MLSE, I have to ask. What's the joke?

Sure, the team's on-court performance is terrible at the moment, but it takes more then just being a bad team at the time of discussion to qualify it for contraction. They're sitting pretty on the business end of things.

[Lights Out]

Well, before the Staples Center, the Clippers used to play in the Sports Arena in University Park while the Lakers played in the Forum in Inglewood, so it's not like both teams always played in the same exact area of LA.