Why hasn't Stern taken over the Kings like MLB with Dodgers?

Moderators: Harry Garris, ken6199, Dirk, bisme37, KingDavid, bwgood77, zimpy27, cupcakesnake, Domejandro, infinite11285

Rupert Murdoch
Starter
Posts: 2,020
And1: 1,906
Joined: May 05, 2009

Why hasn't Stern taken over the Kings like MLB with Dodgers? 

Post#1 » by Rupert Murdoch » Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:19 pm

As a parent, my job is to take care of my kids, provide them shelter and food, keep them safe and teach them right from wrong. The owner of a sports franchise has a much simpler job: he pays for stuff. That's it. Remember Jerry Seinfeld's joke about the only qualifications for a New York City cab driver being a name and a face? Being an NBA owner isn't much different: You need a face and a checkbook. The best owners take it much further by becoming the face of their franchise, engaging their fans, getting involved in the community, unearthing inventive ways to generate revenue, then putting that extra revenue back into their team. But you don't necessarily have to do that. You can just sit back, hire mediocre employees and pay for just enough stuff to stay afloat.

Guess what? The Maloofs couldn't even do that. Consider …

• The 2010-11 Kings had such a low payroll, they dipped more than a million below the league's minimum team salary threshold after February's Carl Landry/Marcus Thornton trade. When the season ended, they had to pay the difference between the minimum threshold and their payroll number to Kings players, who split that money between them. That's right, the Kings are so cheap, you get EXTRA to play for them.

• A few years ago, when the NBA offered struggling franchises a line of credit up to an estimated $75 million to weather a floundering economy, the Maloofs gobbled up every available dime. They haven't paid it back yet. They're like the annoying guy in your fantasy football league who hasn't paid the commissioner in three years. I'm out of checks right now. Can I pay you on PayPal? Are you on PayPal? What if I just get you at the draft?

• When the city of Sacramento loaned them $77 million to help them build a new stadium years ago, the Maloofs eagerly cashed the check. They haven't paid the money back yet, which seems relevant, you know, because they're trying to move the team to Anaheim.

• When Anaheim approached them about relocating the Kings there, the Maloofs asked the city to pay for the relocation fee -- determined by the other 29 owners based on the perceived value of the new market compared to the old one, which means that fee could climb as high as $75-100 million -- and loan them money to cover their debts on top of that. What a deal! So Anaheim gets a terrible basketball team and a ton of debt, plus, it doesn't get to own the team. How can the city turn that Godfather offer down?

• The Maloofs made the fatal mistake of building a billion-dollar tower at the Palms right before the economy turned; between that and Vegas' abrupt decline as a tourist attraction, their economic fortune swung as fast as an unlucky blackjack player at one of their tables. Maybe that's why, in the past 18 months, they sold their family's liquor distributor, folded their WNBA team, shopped the Palms and accumulated so much casino debt that Harrah's started buying it up for a possible takeover.

Getting the picture yet? If Mark Cuban owned the Kings and announced, "I've looked at this from every conceivable angle, and there's just no way a professional basketball team can work in Sacramento anymore," we would assume that opinion came from an educated, thoughtful place. Here's what we know about the Maloofs.

1. They inherited a ton of money.

2. At some point, one of them said, "We like basketball, we should buy an NBA team."

3. At a later point, one of them said, "We like gambling, we should buy a casino."

4. They no longer have a ton of money.

Young Flanagan always warns us on TBS and Cinemax 3, "All good things come to an end, otherwise they wouldn't end." Once upon a time, the Maloofs owned the hottest casino in Las Vegas and one of the hottest teams in basketball. Now they would apparently rather destroy basketball in Sacramento over admitting their own financial plight. The words of Young Flanagan are bouncing right off them.

In baseball, Dodgers owner Frank McCourt ran out of money to pay for stuff. There were two big reasons for this: he was going through a nasty divorce, and he never had any money in the first place. How can you buy one of the most famous baseball franchises without any money? It's a great question. But when McCourt went behind Bud Selig's back and tried to secure a $30 million personal loan from Fox (his television partner), an enraged Selig seized the team from him last week under the rarely seen edict, "You Can't Pay For Stuff Anymore."

Only Southern Californians fully understand what happened to the Dodgers during the McCourt Error. Six decades, Dodger Stadium, Vin Scully, Koufax and Drysdale, Garvey-Cey-Lopes-Russell, Fernandomania, Orel's streak, Gibson's homer, Gagne coming out of the bullpen breathing fire, Dodger Blue … the McCourts were crapping on all of it. Desecrating the brand. Maybe it took a sneaky loan and a poor Giants fan getting senselessly beaten into a coma for Selig to finally intervene, but he did. To his credit. When a commissioner keeps siding with owners over fans, he becomes nothing but a puppet with strings trickling out of his back. Selig stuck up for Dodgers fans. He did the right thing.

Sacramento fans must have felt jealous: for months and months, they had been waiting for David Stern to stick up for them. Last week, he finally did. And only because the arrogance of "the boys" left him no choice. One of the biggest economic swoons in American history just happened because overleveraged multimillionaires and billionaires took too many dumb chances, borrowed too much money and cheated the system too many times … you know, exactly how the Maloofs tried to keep a franchise they could no longer afford to run. Stern finally had enough. But only when the Lakers and Clippers refused to yield their lucrative Orange County territory unless they were paid accordingly.


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ortCat=nba
defjux21
Analyst
Posts: 3,569
And1: 85
Joined: Dec 03, 2008

Re: Why hasn't Stern seized the Kings like MLB did with Dodgers? 

Post#2 » by defjux21 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:31 pm

Because he has already seized the Hornets.
User avatar
tiderulz
RealGM
Posts: 35,590
And1: 14,110
Joined: Jun 16, 2010
Location: Atlanta
 

Re: Why hasn't Stern taken over the Kings like MLB with Dodgers? 

Post#3 » by tiderulz » Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:33 pm

their timeline is a little off. They bought the casino in 94 before they bought a minority share of the Kings in 98.

and its no surprise they folded the WNBA team. Does any WNBA team make money? or are they all just a drain. I have a daughter and it sucks for her, but people just dont really want to watch women play sports outside of women's tennis.
User avatar
JellosJigglin
RealGM
Posts: 15,408
And1: 9,400
Joined: Jul 14, 2004

Re: Why hasn't Stern taken over the Kings like MLB with Dodgers? 

Post#4 » by JellosJigglin » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:26 pm

tiderulz wrote:I have a daughter and it sucks,


:lol:
RIP BASKETBALL REASONS (DEC 8TH 2011 - OCT 11TH 2020)
User avatar
tiderulz
RealGM
Posts: 35,590
And1: 14,110
Joined: Jun 16, 2010
Location: Atlanta
 

Re: Why hasn't Stern taken over the Kings like MLB with Dodgers? 

Post#5 » by tiderulz » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:32 pm

JellosJigglin wrote:
tiderulz wrote:I have a daughter and it sucks,


:lol:

yeah, didnt read that fully when i first wrote that.
User avatar
JellosJigglin
RealGM
Posts: 15,408
And1: 9,400
Joined: Jul 14, 2004

Re: Why hasn't Stern taken over the Kings like MLB with Dodgers? 

Post#6 » by JellosJigglin » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:48 pm

tiderulz wrote:
JellosJigglin wrote:
tiderulz wrote:I have a daughter and it sucks,


:lol:

yeah, didnt read that fully when i first wrote that.



I know what you meant lol. Shows how the press has the power to take quotes out of context.

Regarding the Maloofs, selling off their WNBA team is probably a smart move if they're really in that much debt. I didn't know they were trying to ream Anaheim in the process. I already didn't want them down here, now I REALLY don't need to see a 3rd team. The city is already hurting as it is. Even the Clippers should get out of town and move back to San Diego. They're like a nasty mole under your armpit- no one sees it, but you just want it to go away.
RIP BASKETBALL REASONS (DEC 8TH 2011 - OCT 11TH 2020)
User avatar
Lord Hades
RealGM
Posts: 10,386
And1: 7,281
Joined: Feb 25, 2010
Location: Born and raised in the county of Wade.
         

Re: Why hasn't Stern taken over the Kings like MLB with Dodgers? 

Post#7 » by Lord Hades » Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:48 pm

I'm not all that familiar with the MLB/Dodgers situation, but I'm guessing part of the reason, on top of the league already running the Hornets, is that it's far more in MLB's interest to sustain a notable franchise like the Dodgers in a major market like LA rather than the NBA looking to "save" the Kings in Sacramento.

Also, it seems McCourt pissed Selig off and brought into question his suitability as an owner (or something like that), while the same concerns don't look to be looming over the Maloofs. In any case, yanking away someone's team isn't a commonplace event. Still, George Shinn had already screwed the pooch in Charlotte. That the league looked to hasten his transfer of ownership wasn't really a surprise. Maybe that's the threshold.
"We've proven that we can do it and we'll do it again."
Image
Cavemold
Banned User
Posts: 693
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 09, 2011

Re: Why hasn't Stern taken over the Kings like MLB with Dodgers? 

Post#8 » by Cavemold » Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:53 pm

Because he already owns NOLA. I agree they need ownership but at the same time sacrmento has taken a very long time to come up with a new stadium plans. Only now has the media gave out info of sacremnto giving 9million dollars for new stadium. The ARCO is one the worst NBA stadiums out their
Cavemold
Banned User
Posts: 693
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 09, 2011

Re: Why hasn't Stern taken over the Kings like MLB with Dodgers? 

Post#9 » by Cavemold » Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:59 pm

Because he already owns NOLA. I agree they need new ownership but at the same time sacrmento has taken a very long time to come up with a new stadium plans. Only now has the media gave out info of sacremnto giving 9million dollars for new stadium. The ARCO is one the worst NBA stadiums out their they have a year to get a new stadium going.
User avatar
IllinoisReppa20
Pro Prospect
Posts: 872
And1: 0
Joined: Jan 15, 2010

Re: Why hasn't Stern taken over the Kings like MLB with Dodgers? 

Post#10 » by IllinoisReppa20 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:22 pm

Why just one team when he can rig the playoffs instead
crazytown
Veteran
Posts: 2,635
And1: 757
Joined: Oct 13, 2004
Location: Los Angeles
   

Re: Why hasn't Stern taken over the Kings like MLB with Dodgers? 

Post#11 » by crazytown » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:33 pm

JellosJigglin wrote:

I know what you meant lol. Shows how the press has the power to take quotes out of context.

Regarding the Maloofs, selling off their WNBA team is probably a smart move if they're really in that much debt. I didn't know they were trying to ream Anaheim in the process. I already didn't want them down here, now I REALLY don't need to see a 3rd team. The city is already hurting as it is. Even the Clippers should get out of town and move back to San Diego. They're like a nasty mole under your armpit- no one sees it, but you just want it to go away.

San Diego?? They can't even support an NFL team. A sport that rakes in billions every season. :lol: :lol:
Cavemold
Banned User
Posts: 693
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 09, 2011

Re: Why hasn't Stern taken over the Kings like MLB with Dodgers? 

Post#12 » by Cavemold » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:45 pm

I agree LAC will never get out of the lakers shadow until they move out LA.and adding abother team like the malloofs want to do will only result in the same thing
crazytown
Veteran
Posts: 2,635
And1: 757
Joined: Oct 13, 2004
Location: Los Angeles
   

Re: Why hasn't Stern taken over the Kings like MLB with Dodgers? 

Post#13 » by crazytown » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:47 pm

Cavemold wrote:I agree LAC will never get out of the lakers shadow until they move out LA.and adding abother team like the malloofs want to do will only result in the same thing

Let's not get carried away with Laker fans. I'm guessing you weren't around here between the years of Magic's retirement and Shaq's signing.

Let's see what happens after Kobe retires and Blake becomes even more popular.
User avatar
shobe_81
Inactive user
Inactive user
Posts: 2,749
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 17, 2007

Re: Why hasn't Stern taken over the Kings like MLB with Dodgers? 

Post#14 » by shobe_81 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:54 pm

Because he's busy with the NO-LAL series and his team trying to make sure the president of basketball players association doesn't 1up him in the series before the new CBA.
rpa
RealGM
Posts: 14,771
And1: 7,454
Joined: Nov 24, 2006

Re: Why hasn't Stern taken over the Kings like MLB with Dodgers? 

Post#15 » by rpa » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:59 pm

The only reason the NBA took over the Hornets was so team valuations wouldn't plummet after Shinn tried to sell the team for pennies on the dollar. So they agreed to buy him out at a "fair" market value and keep the values of everyone else [propped] up.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Stern is starting to put pressure on the Maloofs to sell. Just the Kings alone have outstanding debt equaling about half of their teams' value (and remember that the Maloofs don't own the entire team--they're just the majority owners). That's before you begin to look at their Vegas problems.

Return to The General Board