I don't think I've ever bad mouthed Sacramento or its fans -- that's never been my point and I don't feel that way. You on the other hand have been acting like Seattle and its fans got what they deserved and you're misguided about that. At most, I've pointed to Sacramento shortcomings as you've blasted Seattle, purely to make the point that your views about Seattle are incorrect.
The only thing I've said Blazer fans should be in agreement about is that David Stern is an ass. Should we set up a poll on that?
Finally, I haven't gone to your focus on the impact of small market teams, but let's play it out. No doubt yesterday was a victory for small market Sacramento, but what does it mean in terms of the big picture of being a small market team? Stern has sent the message that (a) refusal by a city to fund the entire amount of an arena is grounds for relocation (Seattle) and (b) if you fund an arena for roughly $300 million of a $450 million arena, then you keep your team (Sacramento.) How does that look good to Milwaukee? The answer is that the Hansen group is a useful threat/tool to the owners in those cities, but I don't think the people of Milwaukee are relieved to know that if they pay Stern his blood money then they get to keep the team. It's pretty much blackmail and small market cities are the victims, not the beneficiaries.
It'll be interesting to see how the arena plays out in Sacramento, given the city is having budget problems (
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/08/5403258/sacramento-city-budget-deficit.html) More power to them if they pull it off as easily as they are portraying it, but I'll be surprised if they build it in the proposed location without big drama involved.