Is there anything we want on the Kings?

[Norbit]

Lol this thread is (Please Use More Appropriate Word), cute idea and nice dream tho shrink. Just a little premature don't ya think? ZOMG kings are doing so bad well give you casspi and greene to take on nocioni pupupupuppweaseee lmao

[Slum_Dillinger]

Lol this thread is (Please Use More Appropriate Word), cute idea and nice dream tho shrink. Just a little premature don't ya think? ZOMG kings are doing so bad well give you casspi and greene to take on nocioni pupupupuppweaseee lmao

Talk about an overreaction. I dont think anyone has said the Kings would jump all over a deal that netted us a prospect for taking a guy like Noc. It's speculation, it's a big part of what forums (especially sports related) are about. Thanks for stopping by.

[cpfsf]

I havent checked to see if it works, but what if we could do the infamous Big Al for Prince and 1st rounder deal and then move prince and the utah pick to sacramento for casspi (spelling) and garcia (or Nocioni).

Aldrich (det pick) - Hollins
Love - Sanders (char pick)
Casspi - Nocioni
Turner - Brewer - Ellington
Flynn - Sessions

I wouldn't do that trade if I was Detroit. That's tying up every penny to Jefferson, Villanueva, Gordon, Hamilton, Maxiell, and Wilcox. That's a team in limbo right there.

[Norbit]

Lol this thread is (Please Use More Appropriate Word), cute idea and nice dream tho shrink. Just a little premature don't ya think? ZOMG kings are doing so bad well give you casspi and greene to take on nocioni pupupupuppweaseee lmao

Talk about an overreaction. I dont think anyone has said the Kings would jump all over a deal that netted us a prospect for taking a guy like Noc. It's speculation, it's a big part of what forums (especially sports related) are about. Thanks for stopping by.

Anytime buddy, oh and um only thing thats an overreaction is this thread. Assuming because the maloofs aren't doing so well financially that the nba in going to contract when all stern wants to do is expand. Its so dellusional its not even funny, if worst comes to worst kings move or get new owners.

[shrink]

Assuming because the maloofs aren't doing so well financially that the nba in going to contract when all stern wants to do is expand.

"Aren't doing so well financially?" Now THAT is cute.

• The Maloofs’ primary businesses are located in Las Vegas, which is in many ways ground zero for the nation’s economic collapse. Not only has the Strip suffered, housing prices in the area have plummeted by 33 percent, the worst in the nation.

• There are persistent rumors that the Maloofs had money invested with Bernie Madoff, and we can all guess how that turned out.

• The only hope for the Maloofs and the Kings is to get the voters to support a new arena, but they cannot afford to alienate any possible interest group that might help them, especially female voters and Monarchs’ fans.

• The Maloofs just shut down the Monarchs

This isn't encouraging either, from Saturday's sacbee

In addition to family matriarch, Colleen, who sold her Beverly Hills home this year for around $8 or $9 million (depending on the report), a couple of the Maloof children also put their Los Angeles estates on the market. Phil Maloof's Beverly Hills house was first listed at $16,995,000 and then listed at a much lower $10,865,000, and Joe Maloof sold his Brentwood mansion for $4.2 million. He purchased it in 2004 for $4.75 million.

A member of the Maloof family, owners of the Sacramento Kings, confirmed Friday that they sat down with creditors to renegotiate a major loan for their hotel and casino in Las Vegas.

George Maloof declined to comment, however, on an online report that the family had breached contract covenants on a $380 million loan for the Palms, their Las Vegas hotel and casino, or that the owners of Harrah's may be zeroing in for a takeover

FYI, to stop a hostile takeover, you need cash and that's why the Kings are selling their assets.

As an aside, from the above numbers you could get this approximate summary of what happened to the Maloof's wealth:

At peak
Wells Fargo $248mil (2002)
Beer Distributor $45mil (annual revenues $100mil, but no menton of offsetting expenses)
Palms $386mil (2008)
Kings $385mil (2007 value via Forbes)
-----------------
$1,064,000,000

Now
Wells Fargo $124mil (up from scary nadir of $39mil 9 months ago)
Beer Distributor SOLD
Palms $108mil (possible estimate from partner bankruptcy hearings)
Kings $305mil (2009 value via Forbes)
-----------------
$527,000,000

..and that's not counting some sure debt that would further lower the net worth

We know that Station is reporting their share of the Palms has fallen 87% over the last two years. (FN3.) If you apply that figure to 900 million, the value of the Palms would be 108 million. [sic] .. it would still reflect a three quarter of a billion dollar loss.

Here's Slam Online, after the sale of the Monarchs

... they simply will not have the resources to make it the NBA. (The fact that the Kings are horrid, and will continue to be horrid for the near future, is another factor, but not nearly as important as the thousands of empty seats 41 times a year.)

In the past, the next step would have been pretty obvious. David Stern and the other owners sift through the list of big-money, big-ego types eager to get some NBA action, squeeze a new arena out of some politicians and developers, and move the Kings somewhere else. But right now, somewhere else looks a lot like nowhere, as there are no obvious candidates, either individual or civic, to take on the moribund franchise.

In short, what we may have is contraction. The Kings’ roster, such as it is, may simply be tossed into a dispersal draft (the WNBA knows just how to handle these, having administered many during its existence), and the ‘10-11 NBA may have one fewer team. The NHL has also been talking about contraction, for the same reasons, and there is a certain historical inevitability that the meteoric rise of professional sports in the United States must be followed by some kind of a fall.

[Slum_Dillinger]

Lol this thread is (Please Use More Appropriate Word), cute idea and nice dream tho shrink. Just a little premature don't ya think? ZOMG kings are doing so bad well give you casspi and greene to take on nocioni pupupupuppweaseee lmao

Talk about an overreaction. I dont think anyone has said the Kings would jump all over a deal that netted us a prospect for taking a guy like Noc. It's speculation, it's a big part of what forums (especially sports related) are about. Thanks for stopping by.

Anytime buddy, oh and um only thing thats an overreaction is this thread. Assuming because the maloofs aren't doing so well financially that the nba in going to contract when all stern wants to do is expand. Its so dellusional its not even funny, if worst comes to worst kings move or get new owners.

Did you even read the article? Its not like Shrink pulled some wild theory out of his bum that the Kings are hemorrhaging money and are 100% without a doubt falling victim to contraction or having a fire sale. The article speculates it could happen, Shrink then took that and presented a hypothetical situation about potential pieces we would want from the Kings in the event it did happen. So yes, in this thread, you are the only one overreacting.

[rpa]

Did you even read the article? Its not like Shrink pulled some wild theory out of his bum that the Kings are hemorrhaging money and are 100% without a doubt falling victim to contraction or having a fire sale. The article speculates it could happen, Shrink then took that and presented a hypothetical situation about potential pieces we would want from the Kings in the event it did happen. So yes, in this thread, you are the only one overreacting.

The problem with the article is that it's 3 months old and has a number of things that either didn't apply to the Kings (and still don't now) or don't apply to the Kings given what's happened in the 3 months since. Examples:
a) His point about how "a struggling NBA team can lose $30 million a year." Sure, it may be true but the Kings, as the worst team in the league with bottom of the league attendance, lost just $3m last year (and they were actually in the black the year prior).
b) Half his points center around a new arena for the Kings. As of December, things were bleak on that front. Right now, they aren't so bleak.

To me, the very fact that he added that first point (a) to his argument when numbers are readily available at Forbes.com tells me that he's really reaching. I mean, think about, there are only 2 reasons why you'd put in a bit of proof that can be so easily proven to be either incorrect or useless:
a) Because the rest of your proof/argument is a house of cards and you go for quantity over quality
or
b) bad journalism
Either way, not looking good for what this article has to say. The fact is, just telling someone to "go read the article" is a bit of a copout. You're telling him to go read something that, for all intents and purposes, you can't really backup yourself. To use a political reference: it would be like posting a link to a site that "proves" that Obama is a Muslim (this is more geared for a year and a half ago but I'm sure you remember all that crap). To the point: it's not about what the article says, it's about what parts of the article actually hold water.

Further, what amuses me here is that shrink first posts an article implying that the Kings are in major trouble because they're a money pit that will have a tough time becoming profitable again. But then, not a page into the discussion, he mentions a prolonged lockout hurting the Maloofs. Hey shrink, if the Kings are such a moneypit (as your article states) wouldn't a prolonged lockout, where the Maloofs could cut costs to nil, actually be a good thing?

Lastly, the idea that they'd give up "anything" to get rid of Nocioni or Udrih isn't correct because (as someone pointed out) they'd still end up paying that salary out in the form of a cap penalty (going well under the minimum cap). Further, the idea that they'd sell assets doesn't hold much water either. We've seen teams in the tax be more than willing to trade a player that's making, say, $1.5mil, along with cash to another team for a TPE. As a matter of fact the Kings have done this multiple times in the last 2 seasons. Given that they're well under the cap now (or will be this summer), that scenario (taking on small contracts for $1mil or so per transaction) is far more likely than auctioning off young, low paid assets that generate revenue (specifically Casspi) or draft picks in exchange for only a small bit more money.

[shrink]

I've been through this with rpa on the trade board. He is grasping for anything to not believe this stuff. If an article is 3 months old, he believes the Maloof's financial picture will have changed dramatically, and when I show him an article from the sac bee from two days earlier, he calls it an opinion piece." He claims there's no numbers, and when I give him the numbers, he complains there aren't any links. When I provide links, he just makes other excuses.

I've given up on him. In my four years here, I've never seen anyone so deluded in the face of mountains of evidence. Just think about the size of that statement.

[rpa]

I've been through this with rpa on the trade board. He is grasping for anything to not believe this stuff. If an article is 3 months old, he believes the Maloof's financial picture will have changed dramatically, and when I show him an article from the sac bee from two days earlier, he calls it an opinion piece." He claims there's no numbers, and when I give him the numbers, he complains there aren't any links. When I provide links, he just makes other excuses.

I've given up on him. In my four years here, I've never seen anyone so deluded in the face of mountains of evidence. Just think about the size of that statement.

No one said the Maloofs financial issues CHANGED. If you actually took the time to read what I said I made the argument that what was laid out in that article was full of holes. You're using that article to justify the Kings having a "fire sale" of sorts--which is a flat out dumb thing to do. Again, any article that states "a struggling NBA team can lose $30mil" when the numbers for what the Maloofs lost with a struggling NBA team are out in the open (on Forbes) is an article that loses a LOT of credibility.

[GopherIt!]

Rpa is in stage one (denial) but he is about to go into stage two (anger).

[rpa]

Rpa is in stage one (denial) but he is about to go into stage two (anger).

Just like shrink--one word/sentence answers that try to be cute but fail miserably.

So you have an entire thread based on a 3-month old article with shoddy writing/sourcing and get your panties in a bunch when someone points that out. Good job.

[shrink]

Rpa is in stage one (denial) but he is about to go into stage two (anger).

Just like shrink--one word/sentence answers that try to be cute but fail miserably.

So you have an entire thread based on a 3-month old article with shoddy writing/sourcing and get your panties in a bunch when someone points that out. Good job.

Still denial. You think that's one article? The writing is too "shoddy" for you?

Embarrassing.

[rpa]

Still denial. You think that's one article? The writing is too "shoddy" for you?

Embarrassing.

Most articles are about the state of the Maloofs' finances. That's all well and good. I'm sure there are a number of owners on bad footing not only in the NBA but in other professional sports as well. That's not the point. The article you linked to goes beyond financial issues. For the most part, it glazed over the financial issues that the Maloofs had in general and focused on 2 things:
1) The amount of money the Kings were losing
2) The inability of the team to get a new arena

I won't argue with the Maloofs' financial situation. With Vegas having a dry-spell (that's putting it light), their money machine (the Palms) has went from churning out money to taking it in. What I will argue with, however, is that the Kings are losing boatloads of money (as the article implied) or that the Kings are DOA because of stadium issues (which have changed dramatically since that article was written). Simply: the article that you're basing your thread on has major issues. Without it, you're stuck trying to make the claim that the Maloofs short term financial issues will force them to sell the team, have a gigantic fire sale, or contract (a much harder proposition).

[john2jer]

For when your butt hurts.

[SadKingsFan]

For when your butt hurts.

awww some of you still jealous that we had a far better draft last summer huh? How is Flyyn and nonexistent Rubio working out for you?

[hijacktheparade]

What a non sequitur.

[Basti]

For when your butt hurts.

awww some of you still jealous that we had a far better draft last summer huh? How is Flyyn and nonexistent Rubio working out for you?

not that I'm trying to instigate anything here but you guys had the 4th pick. you were supposed to have the better draft.

[john2jer]

awww some of you still jealous that we had a far better draft last summer huh? How is Flyyn and nonexistent Rubio working out for you?

I don't know if jealous is the correct word. And your trolling isn't exactly needed, or appreciated. I also have no problem saying that I absolutely love Tyreke Evans. I loved him in college, loved him before the draft, love him now, and will absolutely love him wherever he ends up after the Kings are contracted or relocated.

But seriously, your comment would have mad a tad bit of sense had you said something comparable to the Clippers, Grizzlies, or Thunder. In this case it just comes off as childish.

Good luck to the Maloofs. Maybe you guys should put out some jars at the local gas stations with a sign that says, "Save our starving Billion... er I mean Millionaires!" Sounds like Joe and Gavin could use the pennies.

[Narf]

Maybe you'd like to help me out. From our point of view, this is what their stadium situation is.

What I will argue with, however, is that the Kings are losing boatloads of money (as the article implied) or that the Kings are DOA because of stadium issues (which have changed dramatically since that article was written). Simply: the article that you're basing your thread on has major issues. Without it, you're stuck trying to make the claim that the Maloofs short term financial issues will force them to sell the team, have a gigantic fire sale, or contract (a much harder proposition).

March 15, 2010

Kings land swap plan moves forward, but where's the money?

To absolutely nobody's surprise, on Thursday Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson's Kings arena task force officially endorsed developer Gerry Kamilos' three-way land swap deal that would end up with an arena on city-controlled land at the downtown railyards and a new Cal Expo on the site of Arco Arena. City officials now say they hope to sign an "exclusive negotiating contract" (presumably a memorandum of understanding or something similar) with Kamilos by next month.

The big question remains how the heck the Kamilos plan would be paid for, especially given that the state-run Cal Expo says it won't agree to relocate unless someone pays for a new modernized state fair facility, and that "someone" isn't them. There's also the issue of whether tax-increment financing (i.e., kicking back property taxes to the developer) would be involved, as previously hinted; city councilmember Sandy Sheedy, showing unusual perspicacity for a local elected official, noted, "Sometimes when you just say no new taxes, it doesn't mean the rest of the public funds that go into it."

And Sheedy's not the only one getting cold feet: The Sacramento Bee has run a slew of columns and opinion pieces over the last few days questioning the arena deal. Some samples:

Bee associate editor Foon Rhee:

There's a reason why financial projections for arenas and stadiums tend to be so rosy, says Stanford University economist Roger Noll, an expert in the field. Support from sports fans alone is not enough to build a majority in favor of public subsidies, he says, so boosters resort to two lines of argument: the benefits will ripple far and wide, and the arena will attract lots of family-friendly events besides sports.

But such boosterism is "increasingly not working," Noll said, because inflated claims are getting punctured by hard reality.

Economist Jock O'Connell:

Even if construction of a new arena is entirely financed by private investment (which is unlikely to be the case), the task of repaying lenders and bondholders — not to mention generating the revenue to cover the arena's maintenance and operations costs — will fall largely on individual ticket-buyers and those local businesses still able to lease luxury boxes.

It should come as no news to elected officials struggling to balance budgets that the Sacramento region is a much less affluent place than it was just three or four years ago. And no amount of civic cheerleading — or exceedingly optimistic economic impact studies — can obscure the fact that we are staring at several years of sluggish, if not jagged, economic growth in this region.

Bee columnist Dan Walters:

If the city is bent on providing the Maloofs with a new venue for events that only a tiny fraction of the region's residents can afford to attend, that's its business. But why should the state get involved?

Cal Expo, built four decades ago on the fanciful notion that it would become a year-round, Disneyland-like attraction, is a concrete and steel monstrosity and should be reconstructed or replaced with something more like the traditional fairgrounds it replaced. If selling the underlying property would provide the money to do so, as the arena promoters envision, so be it.

If, however, the Cal Expo site is valuable enough to finance a new fairgrounds and a basketball arena, then the excess should be returned to the state treasury, not ripped off by the city and the Maloofs. The state would be making this unjustified gift while it simultaneously is trying to sell other property and the state workers' compensation insurance system to cover gaps in the state budget.

This scheme is insanity, and someone should have the guts to strangle it before it takes on a life of its own.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/arch ... nto_kings/