Interesting Article Regarding Sacramento Kings' Situation

[bosrs1]

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.

True there was a difference, hell if anything the Lakers moved in on the Clippers territory to some extent by moving into downtown (though you can make a good argument the Clippers had already moved in on the Lakers territory previously by moving into LA). But for a decade and a half now they've played in the exact same place to the exact same fanbase with absolutely nothing but the quality of their play differentiating them. And of late even that difference is falling by the wayside. There's nothing geographically different anymore, nothing nomenclature wise that's different, they play in the same league/conference/division, and they're now both playoff caliber teams that can't get very deep into the playoffs. About the only things left that differentiate them are their colors and the amount of rings the Lakers have won.

[Gothamite]

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.

No, but they do now. And they will for the forseeable future, and I'm not aware of any attempts to separate themselves in the market except possibly "sure, the basketball isn't as good as you'll find at Laker games, but our tickets are cheaper!"

[DG_ThenNowForever]

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.

True there was a difference, hell if anything the Lakers moved in on the Clippers territory to some extent by moving into downtown (though you can make a good argument the Clippers had already moved in on the Lakers territory previously by moving into LA). But for a decade and a half now they've played in the exact same place to the exact same fanbase with absolutely nothing but the quality of their play differentiating them. And of late even that difference is falling by the wayside. There's nothing geographically different anymore, nothing nomenclature wise that's different, they play in the same league/conference/division, and they're now both playoff caliber teams that can't get very deep into the playoffs. About the only things left that differentiate them are their colors and the amount of rings the Lakers have won.

But that actually is the difference between the Clippers and the Lakers. The Lakers strive every single year to win a championship, and it's not like they were that far out this year (they played a very competitive series with the Thunder). The Clippers are happy to have a good run every once in a while, but have never taken the institutional steps for long-term success. The Clippers view a playoff season as a big success; the Lakers view anything short of a title a disappointment.

[bosrs1]

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.

True there was a difference, hell if anything the Lakers moved in on the Clippers territory to some extent by moving into downtown (though you can make a good argument the Clippers had already moved in on the Lakers territory previously by moving into LA). But for a decade and a half now they've played in the exact same place to the exact same fanbase with absolutely nothing but the quality of their play differentiating them. And of late even that difference is falling by the wayside. There's nothing geographically different anymore, nothing nomenclature wise that's different, they play in the same league/conference/division, and they're now both playoff caliber teams that can't get very deep into the playoffs. About the only things left that differentiate them are their colors and the amount of rings the Lakers have won.

But that actually is the difference between the Clippers and the Lakers. The Lakers strive every single year to win a championship, and it's not like they were that far out this year (they played a very competitive series with the Thunder). The Clippers are happy to have a good run every once in a while, but have never taken the institutional steps for long-term success. The Clippers view a playoff season as a big success; the Lakers view anything short of a title a disappointment.

Minimal difference. And one that could change fast with an ownership change to either team. And it's again, not a difference in who they represent which is the real issue. It's not a criticism that they have no differentiation (at least I'm not treating it as such as I think LA is a big enough basketball market to support two completely overlapping teams), just an observation. And it happens to be a unique trait of the Clippers and Lakers when compared to all other pro sports in the US except arguably one other pair of LA teams in MLS. The LA Galaxy and Chivas USA are the only other pair of teams I can think of that share the complete overlap aspect of geography, stadium, and league/division (particularly since Chivas USA's whole "Mexican team in the US" thing failed miserably years ago. And for them it'll get even worse next year after Chivas goes through with their re-brand to Chivas LA.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

The "real issue" in a thread about the Sacramento Kings? I just like ragging on the Clippers.

[bosrs1]

The "real issue" in a thread about the Sacramento Kings? I just like ragging on the Clippers.

Well there's really not much to say on the Kings situation until the Maloofs try to file for relocation in March (likely to Anaheim and their potential nest egg from Samueli) and then fail. Until then we'll have to talk about something else. Because they're for now not selling, and even if the team goes up for sale there's no guarantee Hansen will be the high bidder with people like Burkle in the mix. Just as there is no guarantee Hansen will ever get an arena built in Seattle now that the public contribution is up to approximately 40% and opposition is starting to form from the unions and people who are now anti-NBA after the Sonic screwjob.

[OnWis97]

I am blown away that people list two, three, sometimes more teams and don't put Minnesota on the "contract" list. There is no reason not to contract Minnesota. They have no history, an (by NBA standards) outdated building, are about 7th in their own market (Vikes; Twins; Wild; U of M football, hoops, pucks), and have the worst weather in the league (taking them entirely off the free agent map). The league, by design and circumstance, is not built for the Minnesota Timberwolves to succeed. Free agency is too key in the NBA (getting hosed by the lottery every single year and being poorly run, have contributed, though) and nobody wants to play here. They draw fairly well when they are good, but really, they are not likely to be good often.

Others to contract seem to be Milwaukee, Cleveland, Toronto, the Clippers, Indiana. Though the Clips have good weather and the Bucks have some history. Sacramento would be a natural right now, though their franchise actually has a lot of history.

As for the above Clipperjacking, the fact that the Clippers have stars right now is meaningless. Hell, the T-Wolves have a bit of a positive outlook at present (should go to the playoffs in 2014 when Rubio is back). But it's not about the snapshot...it's about long-term viability. And the T-Wolves are the least viable team in the NBA.

And I am not cheerleading this...as bandwagon as I am about the team, I'd rather have the NBA than not...it just makes sense that if they are going to cut teams, that the T-Wolves top the list.

[BBTV]

As far as attracting free agents goes, sure - all things being equal, Minnesota would be near the bottom of the list for most players, down there with Milwaukee, Cleveland, OKC, Utah, etc. However, in a league with a salary cap, there's only so much money in the "glamour" cities to go around, so some guys will have to go to Minnesota et al if they want to get paid. If you are a premier free agent and only those afore-mentioned teams have the space to extend a max-salary offer, then you're going to go there. Nobody is going to turn down a few million dollars from Minnesota or Indiana just to play in Miami or Dallas.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Plus, I believe part of the Vikings deal provides for renovation of Target Center, which likely puts them in a safer position than the Kings, Bucks, etc.

I do agree with BBTV, though, that most players will take the money over sunshine if forced to make a choice.

[rebelx]

Regarding the Kings, I think something will happen down the line that will keep them in Sacramento (namely, the Maloofs being forced to sell and the league giving the green light to a local buyer). Seattle, I think, will realistically have to wait a while for another team, although I think it will happen for them eventually, one way or another. The NBA could very well expand to 32 somewhere down the line (maybe in a decade or so), even if that wouldn't be the best move from a talent pool standpoint, and if Seattle doesn't have a team by the time they do, I have to believe they'll be one of the cities the league will expand into, especially if an arena actually exists by then (hey, KC and OKC built arenas before having pro teams, so it could easily happen in Seattle). Speaking of Kansas City, that to me would be the other city that it would seem logical for the league to expand into. Missouri hasn't had a pro team since the Kings departed back in '85, which is kind of weird.

[bosrs1]

Regarding the Kings, I think something will happen down the line that will keep them in Sacramento (namely, the Maloofs being forced to sell and the league giving the green light to a local buyer). Seattle, I think, will realistically have to wait a while for another team, although I think it will happen for them eventually, one way or another. The NBA could very well expand to 32 somewhere down the line (maybe in a decade or so), even if that wouldn't be the best move from a talent pool standpoint, and if Seattle doesn't have a team by the time they do, I have to believe they'll be one of the cities the league will expand into, especially if an arena actually exists by then (hey, KC and OKC built arenas before having pro teams, so it could easily happen in Seattle). Speaking of Kansas City, that to me would be the other city that it would seem logical for the league to expand into. Missouri hasn't had a pro team since the Kings departed back in '85, which is kind of weird.

Problem you run into in KC however, is the arena being run by a company that is quite happy w/o a sports team. They make more money w/o one than many arenas make with them. They see no reason to change that.

[rebelx]

Regarding the Kings, I think something will happen down the line that will keep them in Sacramento (namely, the Maloofs being forced to sell and the league giving the green light to a local buyer). Seattle, I think, will realistically have to wait a while for another team, although I think it will happen for them eventually, one way or another. The NBA could very well expand to 32 somewhere down the line (maybe in a decade or so), even if that wouldn't be the best move from a talent pool standpoint, and if Seattle doesn't have a team by the time they do, I have to believe they'll be one of the cities the league will expand into, especially if an arena actually exists by then (hey, KC and OKC built arenas before having pro teams, so it could easily happen in Seattle). Speaking of Kansas City, that to me would be the other city that it would seem logical for the league to expand into. Missouri hasn't had a pro team since the Kings departed back in '85, which is kind of weird.

Problem you run into in KC however, is the arena being run by a company that is quite happy w/o a sports team. They make more money w/o one than many arenas make with them. They see no reason to change that.

Interesting; didn't realize that. That's not a very common situation at all.

Another thing regarding Missouri: I've always wondered why St. Louis had trouble supporting pro basketball teams, with three in major leagues having failed in the city. The metro area has the population to support four pro sports teams, it would seem, but for whatever reason, there weren't enough basketball fans in the city. Are they that crazy about U. of St. Louis or something?

[The_Admiral]

I dunno, there were a lot of billboards for SLU basketball when I was there last year. I'd venture to say they do okay, but a tier below the big downtown Catholic teams (Villanova, Marquette). Maybe something like a Xavier. I'm guessing Mizzou and U of I have considerable fanbases in the area. But no, St. Louis doesn't have the people/money for four pro teams, and as long as the Blues maintain the master lease on the Kiel Center, they're not going to cannibalize the market by bringing in another team to compete with their own team.

I suspect people either downplay or forget that KC isn't all that far from KU, and that's a bad place to set up shop. Oklahoma City proved a lot of doubters wrong when it comes to the whole flyover-goobers-fearing-the-NBA thing, but let's not mistake "a place that has a college basketball team" with "a place that really cares about its historically successful college basketball team." Same reason Louisville is a mug's game for the NBA.

[rebelx]

As an alternative to Seattle getting an expansion team, I also wonder about the long term viability of both the Hornets and Bobcats, and whether one of them might move eventually. I feel as though there's a good chance that one of those teams, if not both, is going to run into some trouble down the road. The Hornets, though, may have problems getting out of their lease agreement (I think they took a huge risk by committing to the Crescent City for that long).

The thing that really bothers me about the idea of one of those two teams moving is the possibility that the one that moves will be the one that, at the time, has the Hornets' moniker and colors. I've always liked the Hornets' identity, and there are some good memories associated with it. It would be a shame to lose it. I'd much rather the Bobcats' identity, which no one has ever really liked and has no events or achievements of any note attached to it, or the very possibly subpar identity that may end up being bestowed upon New Orleans be lost to the annals of history so that the Sonics can return.

[dfwabel]

As an alternative to Seattle getting an expansion team, I also wonder about the long term viability of both the Hornets and Bobcats, and whether one of them might move eventually. I feel as though there's a good chance that one of those teams, if not both, is going to run into some trouble down the road. The Hornets, though, may have problems getting out of their lease agreement (I think they took a huge risk by committing to the Crescent City for that long).

The thing that really bothers me about the idea of one of those two teams moving is the possibility that the one that moves will be the one that, at the time, has the Hornets' moniker and colors. I've always liked the Hornets' identity, and there are some good memories associated with it. It would be a shame to lose it. I'd much rather the Bobcats' identity, which no one has ever really liked and has no events or achievements of any note attached to it, or the very possibly subpar identity that may end up being bestowed upon New Orleans be lost to the annals of history so that the Sonics can return.

When Tom Benson agreed to a lease with the state (who owns the New Orleans Arena) until 2024. He was approved as the owner last week. Tom Benson is not going to move that team...however, his sports holdings will go to his granddaughter, Rita Benson-LeBlanc who seems to have issues of her own. That said, I do not think she wants to be known as the person who moved a team, even if it is 12 years away.

[Lights Out]

I really don't see the Hornets moving anytime soon. They just got a new owner with ties to the area who plans to keep them in NOLA.

[BBTV]

I dunno, there were a lot of billboards for SLU basketball when I was there last year. I'd venture to say they do okay, but a tier below the big downtown Catholic teams (Villanova, Marquette).

FYI, while they play a couple of games at the Wells Fargo Center and Pallestra, Villanova is located in a wealthy / elite suburb on Philadelphia's "Main Line" and not really near te city.

[rebelx]

I really don't see the Hornets moving anytime soon. They just got a new owner with ties to the area who plans to keep them in NOLA.

I don't see them moving anytime soon either. But in a decade or so, who knows? If the team is not doing well, the Benson family could conceivably give up on them and sell, and I really don't think that the league and other owners would be so concerned about a local buyer for that sale. Along the lines of what I mentioned before, though, would any new owner have the money to break the lease agreement, or would they just have to wait until it expires? What are the fees involved?

I just don't know how good that market is really going to be long-term. It seems that attendance never really recovered post-Katrina, even after Chris Paul started getting really good and the team became fairly competitive.