Sacramento/Seattle Kings Update

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

@WojYahooNBA: The NBA committees have voted no to relocation of Kings to Seattle, sources tell Y! Sports.

This is what I wanted. Only via expansion, and only after Stern's gone. If Seattle steals a team, it loses all credibility in complaining about Bennett. I listened Saturday to a cofounder of Save Our Sonics criticizing all owners, politicians, etc. He was pretty boring, but I want to preserve that energy.
 
Wouldn't there need to be another expansion team to like Vancouver or Kansas City? Having an odd number of teams would be weird.

It can be done with odd teams but it is very rare. It screws up schedules to no end. I think if there is expansion it will be when two teams are ready to come in.
 
Seattle sports talk radio guys have interviewed columnist/writers in Minnesota, Milwaukee and Charlotte and none of those think Seattle was even a remote possiblity. Of course, you never know what the owners are thinking and those press guys might be off base.

Heck with it, let's get things fired up for the T-wolves to move...that'd get the forum fired up lol
 
Seattle got screwed last time. But two wrongs don't make a right. Good for the NBA. The greedy move by the owners would have let them relocate.....again. They need to stop the migration unless a city just does not support the team.
 
Anti-arena = people who would like to do something else than build an arena. See also, Citizens for More Important Things, of which you should be a member

Interesting but that's not really anti-arena at all. It sounds like these neo-mercantilists are very "pro"-arena. Pro as in Seattle is a left-wing city and left-wingers have decided I need to make a loan to the Sonics, and I have no choice in the matter. Is this not true? Also I don't want to do anything with the taxpayer's money, except return it to the taxpayer.


Huge = high percentage of overall arena cost paid by Hansen.

Well that's not true at all, considering tax liabilities. NEXT. ;]

Seriously, your argument isn't very statistically sound at all.

Limited=public contribution to arena construction is confined to fees, taxes and surcharges of events that occur at the arena

From what I've read, the Seattle Mariners and local businesses agree that traffic congestion will cost the city millions, probably billions in the long-run. That doesn't sound like a limited liability.

As I said I'm not interested in "limited" anyway, I'm interested in zero compromise. It isn't your money at all.

Cost= money required to purchase land, build arena and maintain the arena

No, cost is an economic term which includes opportunity cost. Try to define this word again.

Significantly?= Read the Westneat column. To be blunt, you need to read up on the deal before you bash it. You're fired up about a deal that you don't understand.

Ok, now tell me what the real cost is now that I've had to drag you through the mud in these definitions. Calculate opportunity cost Mr. Central Planner.

Believe me, there's not much you've raised that's a surprise. Living where I live, it's been a constant conversation since 1993 (first baseball park, then football and now basketball) and we actually have some smart articulate people that are anti-arena here.

Yes I read a recent article, there are some smart anti-arena people. They seem to be a minority. But at the very least you need to give me academically sound definitions for basic economic concepts.

I'll give you another chance before I correct you, how do you define cost? Look at the first few chapters of any Economics University textbook. Cost has various components.
 
Last edited:
Seattle got screwed last time. But two wrongs don't make a right. Good for the NBA. The greedy move by the owners would have let them relocate.....again. They need to stop the migration unless a city just does not support the team.

While I agree with your overall point you could also say that SAC doesn't support the team. One of the lowest attendances in all of the NBA and the city did not even try to step up to the plate with a new arena deal until they knew that the Kings could be moving.
 
What do you mean? all of these are appropriate. Especially this one. I'm educating and I'm informing... on the mob. I bet you didn't see that one coming. that's what she said. Well now... How is the weather in Idaho? Do you guys get tired of that joke about you guys being hoes? I know we don't here.poop/fart.doodie.

Hah nice but I was forced to be specific, I don't like long posts but it is what it is.

Not
Intentional
on
my
part
bro. :O
 
Allen sells the Blazers to Hansen and Ballmer. Those two pay off the city of Portland to get out of the lease agreement and move to Seattle.
 
Allen sells the Blazers to Hansen and Ballmer. Those two pay off the city of Portland to get out of the lease agreement and move to Seattle.

Worst words ever.

That said, I don't think teams move if the city has a decent stadium and a local owner willing to buy. The NBA made a pretty big statement today. Does this mean owners are looking for a new wave of LA-style centers of sports entertainment? The Sac arena somewhat falls in line with that. Makes you wonder if they're trying to put on the heat for new arenas. Build an arena, you keep the team. Don't build it, you lose the team.
 
Allen sells the Blazers to Hansen and Ballmer. Those two pay off the city of Portland to get out of the lease agreement and move to Seattle.

TBH, I don't think this would bug me. I've been out of state for seven years now and have been to like 5 Blazers games in PDX in that period, and I'd still follow the team if they moved to SEA.
 
On another note, I think this might actually help us in stealing Tyreke with a toxic offer.
 
Wow, this is going to get pretty interesting. Wonder if Hansen will stay level headed or get PO'd and blow things up. He's got some interesting decisions to make...

DeMarcus and LaMarcus, what a great tandem for Mike Rice to talk about!
 
As I understand it, if the bond defaults the City can collect the default against Hansen and maybe others personally. Also, if there are cost overruns, that is Hansen's problem too.

http://www.seattlepi.com/sports/article/Chris-Hansen-personally-guarantees-Sodo-arena-3856793.php

Also, there are several protections in place.

http://www.sonicsarena.com/info/sonics-arena-faq


Ah thank you. You've answered some of my questions on the matter but I'm afraid "personal guarantee" is more elaborate for me. At least for me it should address the inconvenience of traffic, parking matters, and the like. Increased police patrol and the substitution effect are other issues off the top of my head, I bet local businesses are terrified. There's so much more unaccounted for.

So for me personally I feel the term is misleading. And these are the people being forced to partake in the loan, it is all kind of disgusting to me.


My point is that there has to be an investor who wants to make the partnership with the City and make the personal guarantee for there to be a comparable situation. They will usually only do this if there is money to be made. I don't think there is any money to be made in the public oriented goals you are talking about, but I could be wrong. I am not a billionaire either, so I have never really looked into it.

I think this is a fair assessment.

Well, I mean that the odds that these portions of the city's credit were going to be used are extremely minimal. By the city extending this credit, they are not losing out on any realistic opportunities that I can conceive of. This credit is more akin to rainy day credit that is never used. They are still leaving additional rainy day credit so even if something extraordinary happens, there should not be any major problems for the City. So there is not any realistic lost opportunity for the city to have used their credit for some other worthwhile goal. It was never going to be used. I think I heard on the radio some months ago that there is $900 million in available credit, and the City is using $200 million for this deal. I could be wrong, but that is what I recall.

Ah I see what you mean now, but opportunity cost is much more broad than that. It can refer to basically anything else one could have done with a loan, funding, or the time you're using up. It is a very deep term.
 
Last edited:
I'll give you another chance before I correct you, how do you define cost? Look at the first few chapters of any Economics University textbook.

Okay I'm looking aand it's not there. Therefore, all your efforts lose all credibility.

This is why you shouldn't replace rational arguments with dares.
 
While I agree with your overall point you could also say that SAC doesn't support the team. One of the lowest attendances in all of the NBA and the city did not even try to step up to the plate with a new arena deal until they knew that the Kings could be moving.

No arena is full when a team is really bad. No matter how big the market is. But Sac always did when they were decent. Aren't they discussing building their 3rd arena already?

There are a couple cities that don't support the team when they are good. Those should be the ones moved. (The ATL should be one under consideration IMO)
 
What does Stern have against the Pac NW?

It goes back over 20 years. The Stern Propaganda Machine has always said that the pre-Stern league was in a Dark Ages because Portland and Seattle were champions instead of Boston and Los Angeles. The knight in shining armor restored the traditional capitals to their rightful sovereignty.
 
Okay I'm looking aand it's not there. Therefore, all your efforts lose all credibility.

This is why you shouldn't replace rational arguments with dares.

Hmm sorry this isn't debatable, all books have this specific term in them. At least in the Keynesian books issued by major universities, we all use similar authors.


The author is a left-wing nut so it's not like he's on my side.
 
Man, I'd love to know what Hansen is thinking right now...a couple years of hard work setting it up and purchase docs all signed. Apparently, his hedge fund has had a couple rough months. No other cities/expansion available on the near horizon. Put it all together and I wonder if he's thinking about giving it up.
 
Hmm sorry this isn't debatable, all books have this specific term in them. At least in the Keynesian books issued by major universities, we all use similar authors. The author is a left-wing nut so it's not like he's on my side.

"Opportunity cost" is usually defined in the first few chapters, but you said "cost" is in the first few PARAGRAPHS, and "cost" isn't even in the first few chapters.

And now...You edited "paragraphs" to "chapters" in Post #275 !!
You have officially been caught weaseling out of your dare!!
 
"Opportunity cost" is usually defined in the first few chapters, but you said "cost" is in the first few PARAGRAPHS, and "cost" isn't even in the first few chapters.

And now...You edited "paragraphs" to "chapters" in Post #275 !!
You have officially been caught weaseling out of your dare!!

Wrong, look at your post in 287

http://sportstwo.com/threads/231654-Sacramento-Seattle-Kings-Update?p=3008088&viewfull=1#post3008088

It was "chapters" all along. You need some rest dude, lol.
 
No arena is full when a team is really bad. No matter how big the market is. But Sac always did when they were decent. Aren't they discussing building their 3rd arena already?

There are a couple cities that don't support the team when they are good. Those should be the ones moved. (The ATL should be one under consideration IMO)

The Magic are really bad. In fact they had the worst record in the NBA this year. Yet they are exactly 15th in attendance. They are being supported.
 
Last edited:
One interesting thing, the NBA press release only talked about the relocation and not the purchase by Hansen. Seems like they would have said both the relocation and purchase by Hansen had been denied, if both were denied. That makes me wonder if the vote was somehow split. On the one hand, I'd be surprised if Hansen and Balmer would be rejected purely from a quality standpoint, but I also have a hard time believing that they'd have the Seattle guys take charge of a team stuck in Sacramento.

Best guess is that they are trying to strong arm Hansen and Balmer (and the Maloofs) to terminate the deal in a friendly sort of way.
 
One interesting thing, the NBA press release only talked about the relocation and not the purchase by Hansen. Seems like they would have said both the relocation and purchase by Hansen had been denied, if both were denied. That makes me wonder if the vote was somehow split. On the one hand, I'd be surprised if Hansen and Balmer would be rejected purely from a quality standpoint, but I also have a hard time believing that they'd have the Seattle guys take charge of a team stuck in Sacramento.

Best guess is that they are trying to strong arm Hansen and Balmer (and the Maloofs) to terminate the deal in a friendly sort of way.

They said they were going to vote on relocation before voting on the sale of the team.

So they probably haven't voted on the sale of the team yet. Reason being? Probably some of what you have laid out.
 
Wrong, look at your post in 287

http://sportstwo.com/threads/231654-Sacramento-Seattle-Kings-Update?p=3008088&viewfull=1#post3008088

It was "chapters" all along. You need some rest dude, lol.

Mobes said something in Post #238. You responded with a non sequitur in Post #275, using the word paragraphs. I posted that your statement is false in Post #287. You realized the error in your dare, edited Post #275 (275's edit time proves it was edited between Posts 287 and 290), then said I'm wrong in Post #290.

Live by the dare, die by the lie. Don't edit your dares.
 
Mobes said something in Post #238. You responded with a non sequitur in Post #275, using the word paragraphs. I posted that your statement is false in Post #287. You realized the error in your dare, edited Post #275 (275's edit time proves it was edited between Posts 287 and 290), then said I'm wrong in Post #290.

Live by the dare, die by the lie. Don't edit your dares.

Uh-huh, so explain to me how "chapters" got into your post 287? Let's be honest you've got jack. The 275 edit means I added content, your 287 post just proves the word was always there.

Real desperate to hang onto this "dare", it isn't a big deal I just think it is funny you got caught.
 
They said they were going to vote on relocation before voting on the sale of the team.

So they probably haven't voted on the sale of the team yet. Reason being? Probably some of what you have laid out.

Possibly. But the reason they combined the finance committee with the relocation committee was so that they could address both issues at the same time. Otherwise, they should have just had the relocation committee vote on its own. Also, the purchase agreement with Hansen is dangling out there until the NBA rejects it and I'd think they'd need to resolve that soon.
 
The Magic are really bad. In fact they had the worst record in the NBA this year. Yet they are exactly 15th in attendance. They are being supported.

Wait a couple of years until the seaosn ticktes expire. If the team still sucks then the attendance will drop. Right now they are young and exciting. (Like Portland) But that only lasts for so long.

With all the shit that has happened to the Kings fans the last two years why would they support those two fucking brothers? They will come back to support new ownership. They were great fans before.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top