RealGM

The final truly important decision of David Stern's tenure as NBA commissioner will almost assuredly be what the owners decide to do about the future of the Sacramento Kings.

The Maloofs have agreed to sell controlling interest in the franchise to a group that will relocate the Kings to Seattle.

The decision in 2008 to move to the Sonics to Oklahoma City has been one that has elicited a steady stream of criticism directed toward Stern. By most accounts, Stern wants an NBA team back in Seattle but taking away a beloved franchise from a city like Sacramento that doesn't have another professional sports franchise would create a new issue.

One league executive Tuesday described Stern as "anguishing" over the two offers for the team.

Via Ailene Voisin/Sacramento Bee

Yet in a press conference he states that he has no personal basis on the situation. GTFO.

Adolf Stern only sees dollar signs... he cares not for the lives of the Sacro's.

Grandad434 wrote:Adolf Stern only sees dollar signs... he cares not for the lives of the Sacro's.

If that were true, this would be done by now. He's bent over backwards for Sacramento... way too much to be considered neutral in all this. Seattle, by all non-Sacramento accounts, has had the better offer and is farther along in their plans.

translation: seattle, you're about to have a crappy team again.

FireNellieQuick wrote:

Grandad434 wrote:Adolf Stern only sees dollar signs... he cares not for the lives of the Sacro's.

If that were true, this would be done by now. He's bent over backwards for Sacramento... way too much to be considered neutral in all this. Seattle, by all non-Sacramento accounts, has had the better offer and is farther along in their plans.

According to Stern the Sacramento offer is the same with regards to the net take away of the owners.

Being able to build an arena by November of 2015 is fast as well. I am not sure I buy that timeline. 2016 seems more realistic which they both are. The deals are matching sans the recent increase of the Seattle Group.

Sincerely,

Sacramento.

Should be interesting to see what he does. This one is kind of a lose-lose for Stern so either way he ends up as the bad guy.

Why doesn't the league just expand to 32 teams like the NFL? Give Seattle their team back and then put a team in St. Louis, Pittsburgh, or back in Newark. Hell, all of these cities have NHL teams that they could house a NBA team in...

pssshhhrrr87 wrote:Why doesn't the league just expand to 32 teams like the NFL? Give Seattle their team back and then put a team in St. Louis, Pittsburgh, or back in Newark. Hell, all of these cities have NHL teams that they could house a NBA team in...

Yeah that'd solve a lot of the issues right now. Its ridiculous how cities are capable of losing their teams especially when there's enough support to make a reasonable offer to keep a team going. Stern's contention is that 32 teams is too much, but I'd contend that it beats the alternative of taking franchises away from their fan bases.

ICMTM wrote:
According to Stern the Sacramento offer is the same with regards to the net take away of the owners.

He didn't, actually. When asked about the offer, he's repeatedly said that it isn't an issue. He's never said anything about the offers being equal. The closest he's said was 'in the ballpark', which isn't equal. The Maloofs, however, have disagreed, and have been very obvious about who they've wanted to sell to the entire time. One would think that since the Maloofs are selling their entire stock in the Kings, that they wouldnt care where the money came from, just that it was green. The 30m add-on, the 7% that judges ruled for Seattle, and the additional 25m vaulation all count to them, and should to all owners as well.

As for the stadium plans, the Sonics group has at least outlined a plan that, barring setback, would be ready for 2015. That's a big deal. Meanwhile, Sacramento threw out a 2016 date that was immediately panned by a California judge, citing that skirting our environmental processes was unfair. They are likely to be ready in 2017 according to all sources that aren't based in Sacramento.

And to editorialize on that, the reporting out of Sacramento vs Seattle vs parties w/nothing to gain has been crazy different. Its shameful, really, what some journalists are posting out there, on both sides. To be fair though, I've seen a lot more on the Seattle side as far as being supported by netural party journalists. And there's a lot more evidence in their favor as far as arena plans, advertising revenue, paying into the revenue sharing instead of taking out like Sacramento is likely to do... etc etc. To put it simply, if this is a business decision, Seattle is dominating. If this has some sentimentality to it, Sacramento absolutely has a chance.

Having 32 teams would be a bummer. If anything the league needs contraction. There's not enough great players and a smaller league would be more competitive and fun to watch.