richboy wrote:Plus there some level of what is the future of Milwaukee basketball. Players do not want to play in Milwaukee. It become the place you threaten to trade players too. Is it an asset to the league having a team in Milwaukee. This is a business. What Kareem did in the 70s isn't going to pay the bills now. Oh yeah Kareem didn't even want to play there and that was back in the 70s. I never thought my future kids wouldn't know what a Twinkie was. This is business though. If Milwaukee is a viable franchise they would have time to prove it. Not saying Seattle needs to go get the Bucks. If Milwaukee not going to build them an arena then they should move. They can't stay there just because they use to have some great players who didn't want to play in Milwaukee.
Heard they talking about moving the Olympic Basketball Arena in London to Milwaukee. I didn't even know that was possible.
1) Players love going to Sacramento or sign with the Kings? When has that ever happened?
2) And it's an asset for the league to have the Kings? A team that's a receipient of revenue sharing year in and year out and had the new ownership group guarantee to the league that they won't take it anymore, no matter what.
3) But what Webber and Divac did was so great that it will pay bills and is worth more then what Kareem did?
Those points are not made to make fun at Sacramento or what not(their fans deserve their team), but it's pretty easy to argue the way with the Kings like you did with the Bucks.
Also the Bucks just signed a lease extansion for five more years and their owner is a state politician who dedicated a lot to the state of Wisconsin, Milwaukee and the Bucks. I have a hard time seeing him being the one that would sell to Hansen and therefore be OK with the team moving.
But he's also already nearly 80 years of age or so and you never know what could happen.
Thoug, I think the team(if Hansen/Ballmer do look at another try at relocation) being #1 on the list will be the Pacers.
Their lease will be up next summer, they can't draw anyone even though they're winning and they bleed money on the leases the city gives them.
Also, Herb Simon(owner) was seen smiling and shaking hands with the Maloofs after the decision to deny Hansen. He was also the guy that argued heavily with Stern during the break before they made the actual vote, meaning that he probably didn't like the precedence set, that owners can't choose whom to sell to and can't make the most money of that transaction.
BTW: Another thing I'd like to say.
I can't wait for the next CBA negotiations between the owners and players.
Last time around the owners cried foul that they needed more money, so they could have a revenue sharing and help teams in smaller markets to stay "competitive".
Not even two years later they deny a relocation that would put a team into a bigger market, make them more money and add an ownership group that would most likely pay into revenue sharing nearly every season.
And on top of it, they also make a deal with Sacramento(a revenue share taking team most of the time) to never take any money from revenue sharing, setting a precedence on what cities will have to agree to, if they want to have/keep a team.