NBA Votes Against Sacramento Kings' Relocation To Seattle

[DG_ThenNowForever]

$525 million for the Kings seems a tad steep.

Yahoo's Adrian Wojnarowski is reporting that its all but a "formality" that the NBA's relocation committee will approve a Kings move to Seattle for next season and the plan all along was that any team to come to Seattle would reclaim the Sonics name.

RIP Sacramento

RIP Kings

A sad situation all around. Seventy years of history gone

Here's the King's history:

A championship no one remembers 60 years ago.

Kobe running Bibby over and not getting called for a foul.

That's it. I recognize that it's unfair for Sacramento to lose its team in a way kind of -- but not completely -- similar to the way Seattle lost the Sonics, but let's not romanticize the situation too much. The Kings had a half-decade of accomplishing not that much. Hopefully things change up here.

[dbadefense1990]

$525 million for the Kings seems a tad steep.

Yahoo's Adrian Wojnarowski is reporting that its all but a "formality" that the NBA's relocation committee will approve a Kings move to Seattle for next season and the plan all along was that any team to come to Seattle would reclaim the Sonics name.

RIP Sacramento

RIP Kings

A sad situation all around. Seventy years of history gone

Uh...kinda hard to contend that, at least to me. This franchise has been more "nomad" than stable in their pre-Sacramento days, sans the rise of Oscar Robertson. Then they move to Northern Cali, and in one 1987 game, the Lakers force them to ingest a 40-4 first half pill.

Then things turned around say 1999, and how they were a Stockton 3-pointer away from a playoff upset. Then the two straight playoff losses to the Lakers, but they finally had everything right by trading Jayson (don't know the exact spelling) Williams for Bibby. And you know what happened in 2002: the ref screw job (unpopular opinion but to me, the refs did it for extra revenue rather than because they "love the Lakers"). Another two years of true contention, and then the Bibby-Webber-Divac-Peja-Christie era had ended on an in and out crusher in Minneapolis.

All occurring with the Maloof's dire chess match of stadium negotiations. They were appeared done two years ago, a first class flight to Anaheim, and poof, Mayor KJ saves the day, and all was ready for the shovels for a new arena...only to see the Maloof blob regurgitate and regenerate for the final kill to its fans.

So while Seattle does get the Sonics back, it's come at the cost of the last 28 years of Sacramento basketball, but not necessarily the whole Kings/Royals franchise.

[IceCap]

So while Seattle does get the Sonics back, it's come at the cost of the last 28 years of Sacramento basketball, but not necessarily the whole Kings/Royals franchise.

I disagree. The Kings are actually the second oldest team in the NBA. And they're one of only three NBA teams that can claim a NBL Championship (the other two being the Lakers and Pistons) in addition to the NBA Championship they won as the Rochester Royals.

While the team's history wasn't the most glamorous they were still always there. The franchise always existed, in one form or another, in one location or another. Their "nomad" status makes their history all the more impressive, actually, because the team was actually able to survive multiple down points in their history that made moving an economic necessity. It's a bit of resiliency that makes the fact that they've existed for seventy years all the more impressive. The team literally crossed the country to survive as long as it did. It's a bit poetic in a way if you want to consider the team's history like that and then wax poetically about the opening up of the American west, but I'm straying off point.

The Sacramento portion of their history was probably their most notable portion of their existence since their championship days in Rochester, but it wasn't the only part of the team's story. The team's entire history, from Rochester to Sacramento to everything in between, will be wiped away by this. The second oldest team in the NBA just stricken from the record books so Seattle can pretend the Sonics aren't actually in Oklahoma City.

And the Sonics. Both you and DG talk about the Royals/Kings not having an illustrious history, but were the Sonics really that much more accomplished? They have their one NBA Championship (that most people don't remember), and two other Finals appearances. One where they lost to the equally forgettable Washington Bullets championship team and another where they were just the Western Conference's annual sacrifice to the Jordan-led Chicago Bulls.

It's not like the Sonics were the Lakers or Celtics here. Why is it assumed that their history is somehow more worthy of being preserved then the history of one of the league's oldest teams?

[Lights Out]

Here's the King's history:

A championship no one remembers 60 years ago.

Kobe running Bibby over and not getting called for a foul.

That's it.

Also, Webber's agonizing knee injury against Dallas in the playoffs. That essentially killed their last shot at a title.

[rams80]

$525 million for the Kings seems a tad steep.

Yahoo's Adrian Wojnarowski is reporting that its all but a "formality" that the NBA's relocation committee will approve a Kings move to Seattle for next season and the plan all along was that any team to come to Seattle would reclaim the Sonics name.

RIP Sacramento

RIP Kings

A sad situation all around. Seventy years of history gone

Here's the King's history:

A championship no one remembers 60 years ago.

Kobe running Bibby over and not getting called for a foul.

That's it. I recognize that it's unfair for Sacramento to lose its team in a way kind of -- but not completely -- similar to the way Seattle lost the Sonics, but let's not romanticize the situation too much. The Kings had a half-decade of accomplishing not that much. Hopefully things change up here.

And the Sonics are remembered for one forgettable 70s title, losing to the Nuggets, and losing to the '96 Bulls, Also, they are named for a Great American Aviation Failure. I dunno, I still think the Royals/Kings have meant more to the NBA's history than the Sonics.

------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile the Hornicans, Bobnets, and Grizzlies thrash around with nobody watching them and no real shot at ever building a franchise. This sucks.

[dbadefense1990]

Here's the King's history:

A championship no one remembers 60 years ago.

Kobe running Bibby over and not getting called for a foul.

That's it.

Also, Webber's agonizing knee injury against Dallas in the playoffs. That essentially killed their last shot at a title.

Hmm...they were still good in 2004 (Kobe's game tying and winning 3's in Portland to end the regular year prevented a division title and a #2 seeding for the Kings) and took the Wolves to 7 games in the West Semifinals. And they lucked out on a heartbreaking no good at the buzzer by Webber. After that, the team began to dismantle and go their separate ways.

And even with a healthy Webber in 2003, a prime Spurs with Duncan, Ginobili, Parker and a deep bench would have duked the Kings that year.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

The Sonics and Kings were equally nothing in the 80s, but I would say the Kemp/Payton/Gill Sonics' cultural cachet of the 90s outshined that of the Kings in the early 2000s. While the Sonics didn't do too much winning in the 90s, they were an "it" team through most the decade. The Kings had a quick rise and quick fall.

And I say this as someone who was a general observer of both teams' best periods. I went to just one Sonics game since moving here (they lost to the Knicks) and am mostly excited for their return for the economic benefit.

[rams80]

But was it really the Sonics that did it or the fact that Seattle was the trendy city of the 1990s that every douchebag wished to go and live at because of Kurt Cobain, Microsoft, Starbucks, Frasier, and it being a trendy place. (Present company excluded)

[DG_ThenNowForever]

But was it really the Sonics that did it or the fact that Seattle was the trendy city of the 1990s that every douchebag wished to go and live at because of Kurt Cobain, Microsoft, Starbucks, Frasier, and it being a trendy place. (Present company excluded)

I'm sure

Well, it's not like the Seahawks mattered much, really, until about 2002. But yeah, Seattle did okay with the Tom Hanks movie, the M's and Sonics being generally good, and all the other things you mentioned. Sacramento will likely never have that same popularity. The more I think about it, the more bummed I am it had to be the Kings; Sacramento supported that team pretty well and it's really all they had (except for government workers).

I'm not native to Seattle, but moved here for an education and a city that, even still, continues to grow. There aren't too many of those in the U.S. If you consider that Amazon will soon take over the world and is rapidly growing its base here, it's no surprise the NBA wants back in. They could have made it a lot easier on everyone and just moved the Hornets to OKC all those years ago.

[Eye]

$525 million for the Kings seems a tad steep.

Yahoo's Adrian Wojnarowski is reporting that its all but a "formality" that the NBA's relocation committee will approve a Kings move to Seattle for next season and the plan all along was that any team to come to Seattle would reclaim the Sonics name.

RIP Sacramento

RIP Kings

A sad situation all around. Seventy years of history gone

Here's the King's history:

A championship no one remembers 60 years ago.

Kobe running Bibby over and not getting called for a foul.

That's it. I recognize that it's unfair for Sacramento to lose its team in a way kind of -- but not completely -- similar to the way Seattle lost the Sonics, but let's not romanticize the situation too much. The Kings had a half-decade of accomplishing not that much. Hopefully things change up here.

And the Sonics are remembered for one forgettable 70s title, losing to the Nuggets, and losing to the '96 Bulls, Also, they are named for a Great American Aviation Failure. I dunno, I still think the Royals/Kings have meant more to the NBA's history than the Sonics.

------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile the Hornicans, Bobnets, and Grizzlies thrash around with nobody watching them and no real shot at ever building a franchise. This sucks.

The Sonics, for whatever reason, are a team that people "miss". I don't know why, but they fall into that category as being sentimental or something. Kind of like the Expos and/or Whalers. People, not just Sonics fans, "want" the Sonics back.

[The_Admiral]

They could have made it a lot easier on everyone and just moved the Hornets to OKC all those years ago.

Had to get those Good Feelings, though.

[Gothamite]

The Sonics, for whatever reason, are a team that people "miss". I don't know why, but they fall into that category as being sentimental or something. Kind of like the Expos and/or Whalers. People, not just Sonics fans, "want" the Sonics back.

Teams that move over stadium issues tend to be romanticized. All the way back to the Brooklyn Dodgers. Not a lack of fans that caused them to be uprooted, so the move seems unfair.

Of course, in a few years that might well apply to Sacramento.

[OMMF]

The Sonics, for whatever reason, are a team that people "miss". I don't know why, but they fall into that category as being sentimental or something. Kind of like the Expos and/or Whalers. People, not just Sonics fans, "want" the Sonics back.

Teams that move over stadium issues tend to be romanticized. All the way back to the Brooklyn Dodgers. Not a lack of fans that caused them to be uprooted, so the move seems unfair.

Of course, in a few years that might well apply to Sacramento.

I think it also helps that the purchaser of the Kings has made his intentions known from day 1 while the purchaser of the Sonics was saying one thing while it was very clear he was going to do another.

[officeglenn]

Point of clarification: The deal is only for 65 per cent of the Kings, including the 53 per cent the Maloofs held and 12 per cent held by another minority owner. Is the $525 million only for that 65 per cent, putting the valuation of the franchise just north of $800 million? Or is the whole franchise valued at $525 million, and Hansen et al. would pay 65 per cent of that ($341.25 million)?

[OMMF]

Point of clarification: The deal is only for 65 per cent of the Kings, including the 53 per cent the Maloofs held and 12 per cent held by another minority owner. Is the $525 million only for that 65 per cent, putting the valuation of the franchise just north of $800 million? Or is the whole franchise valued at $525 million, and Hansen et al. would pay 65 per cent of that ($341.25 million)?

From the tweets I've seen, the latter.

[Jaybird]

So, if the Kings do move to Seattle, they will take the Sonics' name, colors, and history, correct?

Yet, I think the Kings' name would also work in Seattle, as Seattle is in King County in Washington State.

Yet, if the Kings do move to Seattle and become the Sonics, they should honor the history and retired numbers of both the Sonics and the Kings.

If all were correct in this world, Seattle wouldn't have to get a franchise at Sacramento's expense (if this is the case), Oklahoma City should give up its rights to the Sonics' records and change its name to the Oklahoma Oil Kings, the Jazz nickname would be in New Orleans instead of Utah, and the Hornets nickname would be in Charlotte instead of New Orleans.

[rams80]

If all were correct in this world, Seattle wouldn't have to get a franchise at Sacramento's expense (if this is the case), Oklahoma City should give up its rights to the Sonics' records and change its name to the Oklahoma Oil Kings, the Jazz nickname would be in New Orleans instead of Utah, and the Hornets nickname would be in Charlotte instead of New Orleans.

Please don't go there.

[The_Admiral]

If I hear about King County one more time, I'm

[FiddySicks]

But was it really the Sonics that did it or the fact that Seattle was the trendy city of the 1990s that every douchebag wished to go and live at because of Kurt Cobain, Microsoft, Starbucks, Frasier, and it being a trendy place. (Present company excluded)

The more I think about it, the more bummed I am it had to be the Kings; Sacramento supported that team pretty well and it's really all they had (except for government workers).

Yeah I wouldn't quite take it that far. Sacramento isn't exactly what you would call a major entertainment hub, but it's not Timbuktu. It's only an hour or so from the Bay Area and about the same distance to the mountains. It's a growing area and they'll get a sports team back some day.

If anything Sacramento proved that they could put together what was necessary to have a pro team, and I think that'll be remembered the next time a pro team in the west is in dire straights to move. The A's would be a great sell and the attendance at AAA games may make it worth the risk. And Hell, if Oakland resembles Beiruit in the next few years even the Raiders may have to consider looking further east.

[The Six]

The Sonics, for whatever reason, are a team that people "miss". I don't know why, but they fall into that category as being sentimental or something. Kind of like the Expos and/or Whalers. People, not just Sonics fans, "want" the Sonics back.

It's similar to how Winnipeg was fetishized with NHL fans. Small, non-threatening market that people suddenly loved when it was gone.