ImageImageImageImageImage

NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation

Moderators: KF10, codydaze

ICMTM
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,347
And1: 176
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Location: Sacramento, Ca
     

NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#1 » by ICMTM » Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:47 am

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1416 ... e-pay-cuts

The owners' ongoing talks about competitive balance, profitability and revenue sharing have included the notion of whether teams are operating in "the best available markets," the person said, and whether reducing the number of teams from the current 30 would help improve the product and the bottom line.

I'm all for that. Saying goodbye to the Grizzlies, Timberwolves, Bucks and Bobcats would save the league a few hundred million in needless salaries and improve the product dramatically. When the NBA had 23 teams in 1980-81, having multiple Hall of Famers on the same team was the norm. Back then, the Heat would've been nothing special. Today, they're a national spectacle covered 24 hours a day.

Billy Hunter, executive director of the National Basketball Players Association, was traveling Thursday and unavailable for comment. But typically, sports unions have resisted efforts to jettison teams because of the resulting job losses. For example, eliminating the two most revenue-challenged NBA teams would mean the loss of 30 player jobs, not to mention coaching and front-office positions. Based on gate-receipts data, the teams that have struggled the most in the past two years of the current CBA are Memphis, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Indiana, Atlanta and Charlotte. The Sacramento Kings are a clear candidate for relocation, given that their stalled efforts to build a new arena resulted in what Stern termed a "disappointing" update on that franchise's future at Arco Arena.


Isn't the paperwork to file for relocation due in like March?
KANGZZZZZ!
User avatar
Wolfay
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 7,656
And1: 649
Joined: Aug 13, 2005
Location: Sacramento, CA
       

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#2 » by Wolfay » Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:48 am

There won't be any contraction, especially not the Kings, although relocation (God forbid) could happen.

Milwaukee and Memphis are the most likely candidates for contraction, but like I already said, contraction ain't happening.
Image
User avatar
RoyalCourtJestr
Analyst
Posts: 3,146
And1: 1
Joined: Jul 04, 2006
Location: Tyreke Evans/DeMarcus Cousins. That is all.

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#3 » by RoyalCourtJestr » Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:25 am

If you're gonna get rid of two teams, Bobcats and Griz IMHO. 28 teams, move NO back to the East.

I hope to God we don't move though. I'll cry.
mprose wrote:And that leaves me with the conclusion that DMC is the Sarah Palin of the NBA.
User avatar
_SRV_
Analyst
Posts: 3,030
And1: 4
Joined: Jun 30, 2005
Location: brew for breakfast

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#4 » by _SRV_ » Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:21 pm

Wolfay wrote:Milwaukee and Memphis are the most likely candidates for contraction, but like I already said, contraction ain't happening.


There are also the other 4 listed who are in worse situation than Sacramento, but, if you look at teams like Indiana and Milwakee, they are in similar situation to Sac, team with a strong link to community and the troubles were magnified by 5-6 consecutive bad seasons.
Another way to increase the profit (other than improving the revenue) is decreasing the operation cost, and I think this is what the league should push for, if the Kings didn't have to pay KT and SAR the last few years they would've been in a much better financial state.
xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:Kobe gets bailed out more than Wall Street.
ICMTM
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,347
And1: 176
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Location: Sacramento, Ca
     

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#5 » by ICMTM » Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:34 pm

KT was traded for...he's not to blame. If they would have just let CWebb expire or bought him out they would have been better off. I'm almost positive insurance payed for SAR's contract.

In any event the Kings are as good as gone:
http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/ ... nto_arena/

“My optimism on there being a new building (in Sacramento) has faded completely,” Stern said. “We really tried hard, the Maloofs spent a good deal of money…. And frankly it wasn’t meant to be. I don’t have any more good ideas. Where we flow on that, right now we have a season to worry about.”
KANGZZZZZ!
bjax24
Veteran
Posts: 2,772
And1: 37
Joined: May 07, 2009

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#6 » by bjax24 » Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:52 pm

What did stern do other than look at one possibility he's just trying to look like he's done anything and will probably screw us like he did Seattle. Can we get John Gotti's ghost to be commish? Anything would be better than this worthless liar.
KF10
Forum Mod - Kings
Forum Mod - Kings
Posts: 25,434
And1: 5,537
Joined: Jul 28, 2006
 

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#7 » by KF10 » Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:56 pm

I wouldn't put too much stock into Stern's opinion about the arena situation in Sacramento. Quite frankly, Stern and his people haven't done squat in the last four years since they intervened. I wouldn't be surprised that this is his way to pressure Sacramento to broker a deal soon.

And in today's news, the Railroads has been sold to the Inland American Real Estate of Illinois. Maybe, the mayor could discuss a potential arena site there to the new owners of the railroad site?
User avatar
RoyalCourtJestr
Analyst
Posts: 3,146
And1: 1
Joined: Jul 04, 2006
Location: Tyreke Evans/DeMarcus Cousins. That is all.

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#8 » by RoyalCourtJestr » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:04 pm

I guess we just really have to hope for

A. A serious contender to arise out of this team in the next few years
B. That none of the possible relocation sites (San Jose, Anaheim are the only two realistic I see) don't get anywhere close to sealing the deal
C. A boon in the economy would help.

I agree that staying put in Sacramento makes the most sense NOW. In three years, unless those three happen, I could see them having a serious "OK, we're moving" talk.

I'll be a pessimist until something good happens. Being an optimist no longer feels sane.
mprose wrote:And that leaves me with the conclusion that DMC is the Sarah Palin of the NBA.
KF10
Forum Mod - Kings
Forum Mod - Kings
Posts: 25,434
And1: 5,537
Joined: Jul 28, 2006
 

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#9 » by KF10 » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:09 pm

Here is the article about a potential discussion with the mayor and the executives of the Inland American Real Estate of Illinois about the arena.

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/22/312319 ... _Container
User avatar
sunsbum
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,537
And1: 5,390
Joined: May 16, 2007
Location: Portland
     

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#10 » by sunsbum » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:25 pm

I would absolutely listen to what stern is saying. From a guy that lived in seattle for the whole sonics debacle I can tell you, the tones are starting to sound the same.
"Mannnnn I’m like the guy that pissed this whole board off saying literally all year no Mikal, no Mikal in the KD trade."
User avatar
Wolfay
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 7,656
And1: 649
Joined: Aug 13, 2005
Location: Sacramento, CA
       

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#11 » by Wolfay » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:28 pm

Stern is so full of crap. He's a lawyer, so I'm not surprised. There's no other feasible market for the Kings to relocate to, not right now anyway. The Maloofs are stuck with us.

Inland seems legit on redeveloping the area. They have almost $2 billion worth of asset acquisition value. I don't know if they have any intention on building an arena there, but they want to do something with the railyards.
Image
User avatar
RussellandFlow
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,450
And1: 927
Joined: Feb 03, 2003
Location: San Francisco born & raised, Pacific Northwest living
     

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#12 » by RussellandFlow » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:31 pm

You should definitely put stock in to what the "evil one" aka Stern says. Seattle which has a much more storied history and a title to boot, in comparison to Sacramento lost their team, because they could not get a stadium deal done. The one saving grace SAC has is that your ownership group is awesome and wants to keep the team in the area, but if things do not improve then a move is definitely possible. The question is where would the Kings relocate? Vegas is NOT happening, but a place like St Louis could be possible. I hope the Kings remain in Sacramento, as when the Kings had consistent success ARCO was the toughest place to play and had the best crowd in all the NBA.
SacKingZZZ
RealGM
Posts: 24,085
And1: 1,084
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#13 » by SacKingZZZ » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:31 pm

sunsbum wrote:I would absolutely listen to what stern is saying. From a guy that lived in seattle for the whole sonics debacle I can tell you, the tones are starting to sound the same.



And that's the general fear here. It's pretty much the same transpiring events all over again. The only difference is at least the Maloofs own the arena and there's not be "leasing" problem or whatever that was up there. All in all...I knew this was coming. Just hope that Kevin Johnson has something up his sleeve.
SacKingZZZ
RealGM
Posts: 24,085
And1: 1,084
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#14 » by SacKingZZZ » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:49 pm

As for that other threads post saying the Kings will be sold, not happening. The Maloofs have stated many times they regretted the family selling the Rockets years ago and with how hard it was to get back into the NBA they will most likely never sell and plan on handing down the team to their nephews.

Once again here is the problem. If the Maloofs can't get an arena deal done the NBA will basically FORCE them to move. In fact, can't you see it now?

"The NBA basically forced us to do it! We didn't want to leave but the only alternative was to sell the team! Boo hoo, bah hah! Thanks for all the support over the years. As a token of our appreciation we'll leave the pacific division championship banner to our beloved 6th man and let it hang in ARCO, or whatever the hell it's called now, until the day the city condemns it! As another show of our affection we also bestow upon you, our former fans, that giant 6 on the lawn"

Oh yeah, life sucks...and then you die.
KF10
Forum Mod - Kings
Forum Mod - Kings
Posts: 25,434
And1: 5,537
Joined: Jul 28, 2006
 

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#15 » by KF10 » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:53 pm

I know one thing for sure, the Maloofs and his people will exhaust EVERY option possible to have the Kings stay in Sacramento. Be grateful to have passionate, genuine owners and an upbeat organization too. If it were lousy owners, the Kings would have moved years ago.
User avatar
pillwenney
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 48,887
And1: 2,603
Joined: Sep 19, 2004
Location: Avidly reading pstyousuck.blogspot.com/
Contact:
 

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#16 » by pillwenney » Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:06 pm

Yeah, they won't be selling the team. Doesn't mean they won't be moving them, but the Maloofs won't be selling them.
User avatar
_SRV_
Analyst
Posts: 3,030
And1: 4
Joined: Jun 30, 2005
Location: brew for breakfast

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#17 » by _SRV_ » Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:47 pm

ICMTM wrote:KT was traded for...he's not to blame. If they would have just let CWebb expire or bought him out they would have been better off. I'm almost positive insurance payed for SAR's contract.



Traded for or signed, what difference does it make? He played here for at least 2 years when he wasn't needed. same goes for SAR who was paid until insurance kiced in and during the period he was paid by insurance he just took some cap away.
xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:Kobe gets bailed out more than Wall Street.
User avatar
Det the Threat
Head Coach
Posts: 6,384
And1: 374
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Location: Germany
   

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#18 » by Det the Threat » Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:18 am

mitchweber wrote:Yeah, they won't be selling the team. Doesn't mean they won't be moving them, but the Maloofs won't be selling them.


They've voted yes on the Sonics moving two years ago, cause they knew they could ask the same question within a couple years.
So yeah, you guys moving is a real possibility now, as this sounds more and more like the Sonics situation especially the language Stern uses right now.

Though, I hope you guys can somehow work things out and stay in SAC, cause long tenured teams moving really sucks and isn't good for the league.
chriswebb86
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,839
And1: 0
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
Location: Reno / Australia
Contact:

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#19 » by chriswebb86 » Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:53 pm

antoekneeo wrote:You should definitely put stock in to what the "evil one" aka Stern says. Seattle which has a much more storied history and a title to boot, in comparison to Sacramento lost their team, because they could not get a stadium deal done. The one saving grace SAC has is that your ownership group is awesome and wants to keep the team in the area, but if things do not improve then a move is definitely possible. The question is where would the Kings relocate? Vegas is NOT happening, but a place like St Louis could be possible. I hope the Kings remain in Sacramento, as when the Kings had consistent success ARCO was the toughest place to play and had the best crowd in all the NBA.


Does St Louis have a new arena? In the end though, if the Kings choose to move, it will take a lot of money to get them to move. They owe 76 million dollars to the city of Sacramento.
SacKingZZZ
RealGM
Posts: 24,085
And1: 1,084
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."

Re: NBA Contraction/Kings Relocation 

Post#20 » by SacKingZZZ » Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:44 pm

From everything I've heard in bits and pieces, places like Kansas City and St. Louis are unlikely. They already have well established sports franchises and there are questions about how well another would do. OC getting a team is possible because LA is just so big and wide spread. My money is still on San Jose. That would be huge for them and that city could turn into what Sacramento could and should be.

Return to Sacramento Kings