NBA Votes Against Sacramento Kings' Relocation To Seattle

[The_Admiral]

Seattle was fairly threatening for about 20 years. The Jets never did anything but bump into the Oilers (and pioneer international scouting).

[DustDevil61]

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.

All is not lost for Sacramento's pro-sports hopes if the Kings move to Seattle.¹ They have a shot--albeit an outside one--to land the A's and even Raiders should neither team have any luck getting a stadium in the immediate Bay Area.

While I certainly can't see Sacto housing a team in all of the "Big 4" leagues, I can even see that proposed new arena² housing an NHL team, and I can also see possibly 2 Sacramento-based major-league teams.

While I'm at it, I can make another Raiders/Sacramento connection: I see the Maloofs in a similar light to Al Davis. Both the Maloofs and Davis were, at least at one time, the better owners in their respective leagues. The Raiders owe their entire existence to Davis, while the Kings may not have been as successful as they were in the late 1990s and early 2000s without the Maloofs running the team. However, both ownership groups should've gotten out well before they did. Davis became old, senile, and unable to run the Raiders by the time he died. The Maloofs lost most of their money (at least it seems to me) from the housing 2008 housing market crash³ and other poor money decisions, yet they held onto the Kings for far longer than they should have for some reason.

1. I'm not calling the Kings-to-Seattle sale/move done just yet.

2. The one that the Maloofs and the city originally agreed to until the Maloofs got cold feet.

3. As they owned The Palms in Las Vegas, and also that Vegas was one of the hardest hit areas by the recession.

[MadmanLA]

Like an earlier poster mentioned before, this whole problem was compounded by David Stern's shortsighted insistence to return the Hornets back to New Orleans, instead of keeping them in Oklahoma City post-Katrina. Damn the PR hit he and the NBA might have taken...from a business and fan support standpoint, OKC proved in two seasons that it could support the NBA much more better than New Orleans ever did in the first four seasons prior to Hurricane Katrina.

I know that the Hornets have the local ownership now in Tom Benson, but they wouldn't survive there without those welfare checks they collect every year from the state of Louisiana. Sacramento has Stern more to blame than the Magoofs or anyone else.

[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.

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

Ah, but Winnipeg was emblematic of larger problems within the sport; a small yet very loyal Canadian market who lost its team to one of Bettman's beloved sunbelt American cities that never really wanted it in the first place.

No wonder that people who love hockey had hard feeling about that move.

[DaytonBlue]

Like an earlier poster mentioned before, this whole problem was compounded by David Stern's shortsighted insistence to return the Hornets back to New Orleans, instead of keeping them in Oklahoma City post-Katrina. Damn the PR hit he and the NBA might have taken...from a business and fan support standpoint, OKC proved in two seasons that it could support the NBA much more better than New Orleans ever did in the first four seasons prior to Hurricane Katrina.

I know that the Hornets have the local ownership now in Tom Benson, but they wouldn't survive there without those welfare checks they collect every year from the state of Louisiana. Sacramento has Stern more to blame than the Magoofs or anyone else.

I think a lot of this from Stern was to keep up with the NFL, even though the Saints are much more of a NOLA institution than the Hornicans.

[The_Admiral]

Pretty much, yeah. Couldn't sneak the Hornets out of town while the NFL was all but straight-up saying that the Saints were rebuilding New Orleans by winning football games.

[OnWis97]

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?

I agree with this, but the bottom line for me is that it does not really matter whether the Kings nomadic history is impressive or indicative of an "insignificant" franchise. It does not matter whether they have a "better" history than the Sonics or not. What matters is that the history remain intact. The Winnipeg Jets are the "second" "Jets" franchise in Winnipeg, but the NHL has not messed around with the history and tried to i) remove the history that had been attached to the Coyotes, ii) add the "old" Jets history to this team (with a nearly 20 year gap), and iii) wipe the Thrashers history out. The franchise lineage remains intact. And I really wish the NBA could just leave the history intact rather than call a team "defunct" as its players move north. It creates historic confusion and it is intellectually dishonest. And its far worse than the Browns deal (which is also intellectually dishonest) in that at least the Browns deal does not contract a team on paper only. That's what this does. I accept the fact that we'll probably never see a team move again and keep their name (unless it's the Rams back to LA or something), but shuffling "franchise certificates" is messy, dishonest, and confusing.

[DaytonBlue]

And I too hope the franchise history lineage doesn't get all messed up. Sonics 2.0 should be like Jets 2.0, same name, but new team.

Even if Seattle would somehow keep the trophy and banners they currently have on loan, they still need to be acknowledged as old Sonics accomplishments.

If I owned Sonics 2.0, I would hang one banner noting the accomplishments of the original franchise with the heading "Seattle NBA History". This is recognition of Seattle Basketball History, not Kings/Sonics 2.0 history. If I were a fan of the new Sonics, I would want it this way as a reminder of what happened to the old team, so that future generations understand how a team was lost.

Seattle NBA History

Original Seattle Supersonics: 1967-2008

NBA Champions: 1979

Conference Champions: 1978, 1996

Division Champions: 1994, 1997, 1998, 2005

A second banner would recognize Seattle NBA Legends.

Seattle NBA Legends

Williams, McMillian, Wilkens, Haywood

Brown, Sikma, Blackburn

Their numbers would not be retired since they did not play/work for Sonics 2.0, but perhaps kept out of circulation.

These banners would recognize Seattle's NBA History while not trying to pretend it's the history of the new Sonics (i.e. Kings).

In a way, I'd say the Jets 2.0 model is better than the new Cleveland Browns model. Names and logos can be reused/updated, but the history of the franchise is the history of the franchise.

P.S. And for all that is good in this world, I never want to see this logo with the established 1967 on it for a new Sonics team...

[Mac the Knife]

You know, as all this has been going on, I've been wondering if the time isn't ripe for a new, financially well-heeled challenger to the NBA emerge. There's certainly enough player talent out there, and a number of North American cities (Sacramento of course becoming the latest, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Raleigh, San Diego, Hartford, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Las Vegas) which have suitable arenas, are of suitable size, and which have little or no major league winter-month sports to compete with (St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Raleigh have the NHL). They'd have to bleed money for several years, but if a rebel league raided the college ranks from its first year, it could be viable and provide pro basketball to markets the NBA has jilted or isn't considering for one reason or another.

[McCall]

You know, as all this has been going on, I've been wondering if the time isn't ripe for a new, financially well-heeled challenger to the NBA emerge. There's certainly enough player talent out there, and a number of North American cities (Sacramento of course becoming the latest, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Raleigh, San Diego, Hartford, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Las Vegas) which have suitable arenas, are of suitable size, and which have little or no major league winter-month sports to compete with (St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Raleigh have the NHL). They'd have to bleed money for several years, but if a rebel league raided the college ranks from its first year, it could be viable and provide pro basketball to markets the NBA has jilted or isn't considering for one reason or another.

Interesting. I would normally dismiss a "rival league", but who knows. Here's a quick list of potential sites to choose from, some probably better than others:

Vancouver

San Jose (May be too much Warriors territory)

Sacramento

Anaheim (May be too much LA territory)

San Diego

Las Vegas

Kansas City

St. Louis

Louisville

Nashville

Columbus

Pittsburgh

Buffalo

Montreal

Hartford

New Jersey (Hey, the Nets left...)

Baltimore

Norfolk

Raleigh

Tampa Bay

[dfwabel]

You know, as all this has been going on, I've been wondering if the time isn't ripe for a new, financially well-heeled challenger to the NBA emerge. There's certainly enough player talent out there, and a number of North American cities (Sacramento of course becoming the latest, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Raleigh, San Diego, Hartford, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Las Vegas) which have suitable arenas, are of suitable size, and which have little or no major league winter-month sports to compete with (St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Raleigh have the NHL). They'd have to bleed money for several years, but if a rebel league raided the college ranks from its first year, it could be viable and provide pro basketball to markets the NBA has jilted or isn't considering for one reason or another.

There is not enough players to make up a new league. The NBA is under-talented enough. This year's NCAA freshman class, and the sophomore class is really not good enough to be NBA talent.

Even the list of "major cities" which McCall gave has issues.

Louisville: KFCYum! Center has Univ. of Louisville with first right and rights to suite/club revenue.

Baltimore: Propose new arena, but the cable TV is the bigger revenue generator and with the Wizards, could MASN equal the CSNDC deal?

Buffalo: Please. No money in a Rust Belt town for another franchise.

Raleigh: They would have more gate issues than Charlotte. Three ACC teams in a 30 mile radius and a NHL team is an issue.

Columbus: Ohio State is the "pro" team and a capital city arena(s) with suites

San Diego: No facility. I went to a 2004 concert at the the SD Sports Arena and it was banal. SDSU on campus

venue is nice, but small.

There still are not enough cities in which players would sign with to make it worthwhile. Free agents have yet to go to OKC, so why would they take the risk and to to Tulsa?

[Eye]

Wrong thread.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

And I too hope the franchise history lineage doesn't get all messed up. Sonics 2.0 should be like Jets 2.0, same name, but new team.

Even if Seattle would somehow keep the trophy and banners they currently have on loan, they still need to be acknowledged as old Sonics accomplishments.

If I owned Sonics 2.0, I would hang one banner noting the accomplishments of the original franchise with the heading "Seattle NBA History". This is recognition of Seattle Basketball History, not Kings/Sonics 2.0 history. If I were a fan of the new Sonics, I would want it this way as a reminder of what happened to the old team, so that future generations understand how a team was lost.

Seattle NBA History

Original Seattle Supersonics: 1967-2008

NBA Champions: 1979

Conference Champions: 1978, 1996

Division Champions: 1994, 1997, 1998, 2005

A second banner would recognize Seattle NBA Legends.

Seattle NBA Legends

Williams, McMillian, Wilkens, Haywood

Brown, Sikma, Blackburn

Their numbers would not be retired since they did not play/work for Sonics 2.0, but perhaps kept out of circulation.

These banners would recognize Seattle's NBA History while not trying to pretend it's the history of the new Sonics (i.e. Kings).

In a way, I'd say the Jets 2.0 model is better than the new Cleveland Browns model. Names and logos can be reused/updated, but the history of the franchise is the history of the franchise.

P.S. And for all that is good in this world, I never want to see this logo with the established 1967 on it for a new Sonics team...

This kind of has to be the first of it's kind right? I mean in the respect of a team with history leaving town and another team with history vacating their city taking their place. The Cleveland Browns 2.0 were an expansion; the Thrashers had no history to bring along when they moved to Winnipeg, so it made it easy for everyone to forget about them and everyone knows the NHL will never return to Atlanta.

Does the Kings franchise have any retired numbers?

[rams80]

This kind of has to be the first of it's kind right? I mean in the respect of a team with history leaving town and another team with history vacating their city taking their place. The Cleveland Browns 2.0 were an expansion; the Thrashers had no history to bring along when they moved to Winnipeg, so it made it easy for everyone to forget about them and everyone knows the NHL will never return to Atlanta.

Except the new Jets do claim the Thrashers lineage and franchise history and records. They recognize the old Jets' accomplishments as "something that was done by the other pro team and should be honored in that context." The St. Louis Rams take a similar approach with regards to the history of the Saint Louis football Cardinals.

As for retired numbers, the Kings have 10, 9 of which are players-including such players as Oscar Robertson and Chris Webber.

[B-Rich]

Like an earlier poster mentioned before, this whole problem was compounded by David Stern's shortsighted insistence to return the Hornets back to New Orleans, instead of keeping them in Oklahoma City post-Katrina. Damn the PR hit he and the NBA might have taken...from a business and fan support standpoint, OKC proved in two seasons that it could support the NBA much more better than New Orleans ever did in the first four seasons prior to Hurricane Katrina.

I know that the Hornets have the local ownership now in Tom Benson, but they wouldn't survive there without those welfare checks they collect every year from the state of Louisiana. Sacramento has Stern more to blame than the Magoofs or anyone else.

Get your facts straight before you rant.

1) "but they wouldn't survive there without those welfare checks they collect every year from the state of Louisiana". The new lease agreement relieves the State from the burden of giving the Hornets any financial subsidies, and shifts the responsibility of generating additional revenue to the Hornets.

2) "David Stern's shortsighted insistence to return the Hornets back to New Orleans, instead of keeping them in Oklahoma City post-Katrina." As I pointed out recently in another thread ( http://boards.sports...00#entry1943049), Stern would have been glad to let the Hornets stay in OKC... if Shinn would have sold them to Bennett and company. Again, all of you must understand, these are not Stern's teams to play around with, it's each individual owner's team. All in all, I think Stern and the rest of the NBA owners realized they made a mistake back in the mid-80s when they let George Shinn come in as owner of the franchise, He caused the league nothing but trouble afterwards, going through multiple minority owners, cheapness with players, sexual harassment shenanigans featured on Court TV, arena demands, poisoning a great NBA market, relocating a team and then wanting to relocate it again after only three seasons, and having significant financial and debt problems. So they did what they could to get rid of him, eventually giving him enough rope to hang himself and get out.

3) "from a business and fan support standpoint, OKC proved in two seasons that it could support the NBA much more better than New Orleans ever did in the first four seasons prior to Hurricane Katrina." But in the great scheme of things, that doesn't mean crap. This wasn't a contest to determine winners of the franchise. It was a temporary relocation based upon a natural (and man-made) disaster. Also, you are comparing apples and oranges, New Orleans was a long-time pro sports city with nothing to prove. The Hornets moving here was seen as a plus, a nice addition to our many entertainment options. Oklahoma City was a newer, growing city with major league pro sports history trying to show that they were now a "big-league town"; and bless 'em, they did a great job of it with this tryout. Of course, think of the alternative if they DIDN'T: no shot at all of getting another pro team, written off completely for years to come.

[rams80]

1) "but they wouldn't survive there without those welfare checks they collect every year from the state of Louisiana". The new lease agreement relieves the State from the burden of giving the Hornets any financial subsidies, and shifts the responsibility of generating additional revenue to the Hornets.

So I guess the Hornets are now Tom Benson's tax write off so he doesn't have to kick in as much of the Saints' profits.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

This kind of has to be the first of it's kind right? I mean in the respect of a team with history leaving town and another team with history vacating their city taking their place. The Cleveland Browns 2.0 were an expansion; the Thrashers had no history to bring along when they moved to Winnipeg, so it made it easy for everyone to forget about them and everyone knows the NHL will never return to Atlanta.

Except the new Jets do claim the Thrashers lineage and franchise history and records. They recognize the old Jets' accomplishments as "something that was done by the other pro team and should be honored in that context." The St. Louis Rams take a similar approach with regards to the history of the Saint Louis football Cardinals.

As for retired numbers, the Kings have 10, 9 of which are players-including such players as Oscar Robertson and Chris Webber.

Wow 10...ok..so do you guys think these retired numbers would stay in Sacramento, like Seattle's were, or...?

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Also- would they just resurrect their last edition of logos/unis, or come up with something new?

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

I'm just going to leave this right here....

[Mac the Knife]

So I guess the Hornets are now Tom Benson's tax write off so he doesn't have to kick in as much of the Saints' profits.

Actually, he's combined a lot of their operations with those of the Saints, so at least in terms of front office personnel, there's a cost savings there that likely translates into the team being profitable or break-even.