Jump to content

NBA Votes Against Sacramento Kings' Relocation To Seattle


Dexter Morgan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 584
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I smell expansion...

I smell a fart in Seattle's general direction from David Stern. The Stranger hypothesizes that the unanimous vote is indicative of expansion, but without any mention of that, it just seems like one more slight in this market from Stern. I don't get it. (I mean, I kind of do -- I just don't like it.)

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I smell expansion...

I smell a fart in Seattle's general direction from David Stern. The Stranger hypothesizes that the unanimous vote is indicative of expansion, but without any mention of that, it just seems like one more slight in this market from Stern. I don't get it. (I mean, I kind of do -- I just don't like it.)

It just makes zero sense to say, "You can't sell your product for $357 million but you can sell it to these guys for $341 million," unless there was something on the horizon.

Is it out of the realm of possibility for the Maloofs to keep the team and not sell it to anyone?

cv2TCLZ.png


"I secretly hope people like that hydroplane into a wall." - Dennis "Big Sexy" Ittner

POTD - 7/3/14

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's a host of people out there willing to pay for a small market basketball team for a $550M valuation, those same folks would almost assuredly pay the expansion fee.

So Seattle and...KC? San Diego? A second Chicago?

Chicago is probably good with one. San Diego doesn't have an arena (nor any plans or political will to build one), KC however might work given they have the arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's a host of people out there willing to pay for a small market basketball team for a $550M valuation, those same folks would almost assuredly pay the expansion fee.

So Seattle and...KC? San Diego? A second Chicago?

Seattle and nobody. There's no need for a second expansion team. The league had 29 teams until Charlotte came back and did just fine.

cv2TCLZ.png


"I secretly hope people like that hydroplane into a wall." - Dennis "Big Sexy" Ittner

POTD - 7/3/14

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A second Chicago?

Dixmoor finally gets its due!

On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said:

For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA.

PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adrian Wojnarowski is reporting on Twitter that the NBA has voted down the proposed Seattle relocation.

Interesting, but probably for the best. So where the hell are the Kings off to?

Downtown Sacramento! :winner:

So glad the good guys won.

At the end of the day, which city had the perceived "good" and "evil" sides? Both had active and passionate fan bases and grassroots efforts. Both had willing businessmen who had plausible plans for this franchise. Both city's governments have taken an active role in acquiring the team, especially Kevin Johnson. There had to have been a loser here, unfortunately, because the fans from both cities taxed so much time and effort to see NBA basketball in their city.

Having said that, David Stern would rather keep a team in a city with it being the only franchise, rather than to succumb to hoarding losers, the Maloofs, who sought to sell the team McCourt-style to a city with other sports teams to pass the time. Stern knows that one of his proudest accomplishments as commissioner will be the green lighting and stabilization of teams in single-sport markets (Sacramento, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Portland, etc), and allowing the Kings to relocate would be one of his many black eyes he'd rather not have with him when he retires. Sad to see the Seattle NBA dream die for now, but glad the capital of America's most populous state will keep their NBA team after years of guillotine-type torture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adrian Wojnarowski is reporting on Twitter that the NBA has voted down the proposed Seattle relocation.

Interesting, but probably for the best. So where the hell are the Kings off to?

Downtown Sacramento! :winner:

So glad the good guys won.

At the end of the day, which city had the perceived "good" and "evil" sides? Both had active and passionate fan bases and grassroots efforts. Both had willing businessmen who had plausible plans for this franchise. Both city's governments have taken an active role in acquiring the team, especially Kevin Johnson. There had to have been a loser here, unfortunately, because the fans from both cities taxed so much time and effort to see NBA basketball in their city.

Having said that, David Stern would rather keep a team in a city with it being the only franchise, rather than to succumb to hoarding losers, the Maloofs, who sought to sell the team McCourt-style to a city with other sports teams to pass the time. Stern knows that one of his proudest accomplishments as commissioner will be the green lighting and stabilization of teams in single-sport markets (Sacramento, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Portland, etc), and allowing the Kings to relocate would be one of his many black eyes he'd rather not have with him when he retires. Sad to see the Seattle NBA dream die for now, but glad the capital of America's most populous state will keep their NBA team after years of guillotine-type torture.

The city who had been home to the franchise for nearly 3 decades were the good guys. The city that wanted to buy and move the team were the bad guys. It really is quite simple with possession being 9/10ths and all that. That was one thing that irked me throughout all of this. I came across more Seattle fans who tried to paint themselves as the good guys even when it in no way jived with the reality that their group was trying to screw another city just as hard as they'd been screwed by OKC 5 years ago...

Also we may want to retitle the thread to "Sacramento Kings NOT being sold to Seattle group"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good news all around. I'm happy for you, Sacramento.

Sacramento Kings: 1945-present :)

Yeah that was going to be the most screwed up part of it, the history swap where the oldest continually operating franchise was going to cease to exist just so Seattle fans could pretend the Kings were the Sonics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ultimate villains though weren't Seattlites, it was the Maloofs. They didn't bother to improve the team since 2006, wrecked arena deal after arena deal, and made the fan apathetic. I just want the team to be good again after these awful years. Of course I'm happy that the only team in the place I have lived my entire life is staying. :)

san-francisco-giants-cap.jpgsanfranciscob.gifArizonaWildcats4.gifcalirvine.jpg
BEAR DOWN ARIZONA!

2013/14 Tanks Picks Champion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adrian Wojnarowski is reporting on Twitter that the NBA has voted down the proposed Seattle relocation.

Awesome news. Stern finally got something right for once. Suck it, Maloofs!

They already got their 30 million dollars out of this. Joke's not on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the Bucks are going to come up a lot here, and I don't blame anyone after the abysmal Playoff performance. But, FWIW, Owner Kohl has told Commissioner Stern that a new arena deal will be in place by the time the current lease expires in 2017. Which as I understand it means plans are in place. This is common knowledge and not insider info. Does it throw a wrinkle in, yes it does, but as of now the Bucks are ready to keep Milwaukee their home and are progressing towards it.

packchampionslfroh.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We would have saved a lot of misery if leagues had stood up in the past and said no to Clay Bennett, Art Modell, and all the other owners who felt they should be able to leave solid markets and trash the league's brand equity.

I think as a rule of thumb...if a team is going to be replaced with an expansion team anyway, it shouldn't be allowed to leave. Put the expansion team in the new market (with a Cleveland deal if really necessary...but ideally not) and leave the historical teams alone. Then we could still have Houston Oilers, Charlotte Hornets, etc...

I don't think it's appropriate for a league to allow a team to leave a viable market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately if Ballmer is right, expansion isn't happening either. Stern has been pretty adamant about that, and now Ballmer coming out and saying it's over... Sucks for Seattle for sure, but this was still the right outcome in this case. Sacramento did everything asked of them in record time and are providing a handsome subsidy to the league that Seattle isn't. Not saying Seattle deserved to lose their team in the first place, but they didn't deserve the Kings this time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.