Sacramento/Seattle Kings Update

[EL PRESIDENTE]

think of it this way. Say I had $50 billion dollars. I wanted to buy the L*kers and move them to Akron, Ohio...should I be able to just because I simply have the funds to do so and can outbid any buyer in LA who will keep them there?

(ok, not the best example but you get the point)

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Bad example.

Going from Sacramento to Seattle is equivalent to Seattle moving to OKC, but in reverse.

In other words, it would have been a massive upgrade in that regard.

 

[jlprk]

How could the league force the Maloofs to sell? All I can think of is, Stern threatened to call in their loans. But I would think that the Maloof lawyers had written some protection into the contract.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Bad example.

Going from Sacramento to Seattle is equivalent to Seattle moving to OKC, but in reverse.

In other words, it would have been a massive upgrade in that regard.

So every smaller team MUST be sold if there is a higher bidder to a larger city, repercussions be damned?

The Spurs should be forced to be sold to San Diego if they put in a higher bid than anyone else?
The Blazers should be forced to be moved to seattle if the Hansen group, in 10 years, outbids any local bidders if Allen sells the team?

I'm just being consistent here.

If in 10 years, the Hansen group comes a knocking (or some larger city) when Paul Allen sells the Blazers.....you don't think preference should be given to an ownership group that will keep the Blazers in Portland? If you were to oppose this later, you would be hypocritical.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

How could the league force the Maloofs to sell? All I can think of is, Stern threatened to call in their loans. But I would think that the Maloof lawyers had written some protection into the contract.

They don't have to force them to sell. The Maloofs are broke though so they need to take the money and run.

 

[jlprk]

Hansen buying 20% wouldn't have provided the Maloofs enough candy and snack money?

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

So every smaller team MUST be sold if there is a higher bidder to a larger city, repercussions be damned?

The Spurs should be forced to be sold to San Diego if they put in a higher bid than anyone else?
The Blazers should be forced to be moved to seattle if the Hansen group, in 10 years, outbids any local bidders if Allen sells the team?

I'm just being consistent here.

If in 10 years, the Hansen group comes a knocking (or some larger city) when Paul Allen sells the Blazers.....you don't think preference should be given to an ownership group that will keep the Blazers in Portland? If you were to oppose this later, you would be hypocritical.

I think the owner(s) should have the right to sell to whomever they want to.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I think the owner(s) should have the right to sell to whomever they want to.

So if they offer to buy the Blazers right now and move them to Seattle, the NBA should allow it?

The NBA isn't a bunch of independant franchises, they function cohesively as a unit. Factors such as franchise cities affect every team in the league.

The simple moving of franchises around as chess pieces isn't a recipe for a stable league.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Hansen buying 20% wouldn't have provided the Maloofs enough candy and snack money?

Bluff on Hansen's part.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

So Fez, you approve of the Sonics moving to Oklahoma City, right?

 

[mobes23]

Bluff on Hansen's part.

Disagree. Hansen doesn't seem like a bluffer at all. I think he was good to go, but the Maloofs didn't pursue it.

I'd love to know the true scoop.

 

[Pinwheel1]

So if they offer to buy the Blazers right now and move them to Seattle, the NBA should allow it?

The NBA isn't a bunch of independant franchises, they function cohesively as a unit. Factors such as franchise cities affect every team in the league.

The simple moving of franchises around as chess pieces isn't a recipe for a stable league.

Excellent post.

 

[OregonHuskerMan]

All this means is that groups will buy teams not announcing that they want to move the team. Like clay bennet.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I'd lead the charge to Seattle with pitchforks and torches and burn that city to the fucking ground. The thing is, if the Blazers are halfway good there will be fan support and Portland will theoretically stand up. But yeah, I wouldn't trust the local government with any favors.

This is essentially why I am against moving teams like chess pieces. Especially with loyal fanbases. For those that support moving the Kings to Seattle, you're simply advocating making the "rich, richer". Taking teams...like the Portland Trailblazers and simply just buying them because you have more money and moving them away and disappointing an entire city.

You totally opened my eyes to the situation. Repped.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

All this means is that groups will buy teams not announcing that they want to move the team. Like clay bennet.

Well. .. that's why moves have to be approved by ownership committees. In theory. ..is a check and balance.

hoop fam

 

[jlprk]

How did Stern force the Maloofs to sell? The only answer I can think of is that he threatened to call in the loans, which are $100-150 million. But Hansen already offered him 20% of the purchase price, which wound up being only $535 million but Hansen had offered more.

Hansen would have covered Maloof's cash flow problems until buying more than 20%.

But the league must approve even the 20% sale, right? The league could stall that process. But meanwhile, Hansen could loan the $100-150M himself to the Maloofs if Stern reneged on the league loans.

So I just walked in a circle. I'm back to the question at the top.

 

[mobes23]

Seattle sports radio read a twitter from a usatoday NBA writer and it basically said the owners were leaning to Seattle and then Stern turned the owners to Seattle. It'd be interesting to know what the straight scoop is, but guessing we'll never know for sure.

 

[mobes23]

Wrong.

No, during the heart of the attempts to build a new arena, the new and supposedly modern Key Arena was approx. 10 years old. It dragged on long enough that it was getting older...I think it was approx. 12/13 years old by the time the Sonics left.

Shoot, even if it was 15 years old, my point is the same. People are surprised the Rose Garden is being called into question now. Imagine if that discussion happened 10 years ago and we lost the Blazers 5 years ago.

The point is that it's pretty difficult to rally the support when the "old" stadium ain't that old.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Seattle sports radio read a twitter from a usatoday NBA writer and it basically said the owners were leaning to Seattle and then Stern turned the owners to Seattle. It'd be interesting to know what the straight scoop is, but guessing we'll never know for sure.

You mean Sactown right?

 

[mobes23]

So every smaller team MUST be sold if there is a higher bidder to a larger city, repercussions be damned?

The Spurs should be forced to be sold to San Diego if they put in a higher bid than anyone else?
The Blazers should be forced to be moved to seattle if the Hansen group, in 10 years, outbids any local bidders if Allen sells the team?

I'm just being consistent here.

If in 10 years, the Hansen group comes a knocking (or some larger city) when Paul Allen sells the Blazers.....you don't think preference should be given to an ownership group that will keep the Blazers in Portland? If you were to oppose this later, you would be hypocritical.

Presidente, I actually like the world you live in (I seriously do), but I don't think it's that simple. I don't think the decision to keep the Kings in Sacramento was mainly about respecting and treating the fans well. It might have been a factor, but it was a relatively small factor. I think the two more important factors were:

- Sending the message to other cities, that building an arena means you keep the team. Don't build one, you lose it. Guessing that part of Stern's argument was that enhanced arenas would do to more to increase franchise value over the long haul than the $100MM larger offer that Hansen made.
- It was Stern's agenda. He seems to have crazy power and he gets what he wants. It's great if your interests are aligned with his and game over if they're not.
- I'd put fan consideration in third place behind the other two.

That all said, I'm still really surprised that the owners made another owner group take $100MM less. So maybe there is something to your world or maybe they just hated the Maloofs for siphoning money from them for so long.

 

[mobes23]

You mean Sactown right?

leaning to Seattle and then Stern turned the owners to Sacramento.

Right on, lack of sleep is getting to me.

 

[jlprk]

No, during the heart of the attempts to build a new arena, the new and supposedly modern Key Arena was approx. 10 years old. It dragged on long enough that it was getting older...I think it was approx. 12/13 years old by the time the Sonics left.

Shoot, even if it was 15 years old, my point is the same. People are surprised the Rose Garden is being called into question now. Imagine if that discussion happened 10 years ago and we lost the Blazers 5 years ago.

The point is that it's pretty difficult to rally the support when the "old" stadium ain't that old.

In Seattle's case, Key Arena had been completed only 10 years before (and no, it was a simple refurbishment...it was a rebuild.)

While I did post in this thread that Sonic owners floated ideas about major changes to KeyArena at age 6, that wasn't what I was talking about when I said "wrong." I meant that Key is not just a refurbishment or rebuild or new façade of the Coliseum, which was torn down. Key was built brand new in 1995. It's very important. Critics say the Sonics should have moved because they played in a 1962 arena and they are wrong. Most websites are wrong, like this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KeyArena

 

[mobes23]

While I did post in this thread that Sonic owners floated ideas about major changes to KeyArena at age 6, that wasn't what I was talking about when I said "wrong." I meant that Key is not just a refurbishment or rebuild or new façade of the Coliseum, which was torn down. Key was built brand new in 1995. It's very important. Critics say the Sonics should have moved because they played in a 1962 arena and they are wrong. Most websites are wrong, like this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KeyArena

Yep, we're on the same page then. I saw Key Arena first and was pretty impressed it with...then I saw the Rose Garden. It was like comparing a nice college arena to a nice NBA arena. No real comparion.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Presidente, I actually like the world you live in (I seriously do), but I don't think it's that simple. I don't think the decision to keep the Kings in Sacramento was mainly about respecting and treating the fans well. It might have been a factor, but it was a relatively small factor. I think the two more important factors were:

- Sending the message to other cities, that building an arena means you keep the team. Don't build one, you lose it. Guessing that part of Stern's argument was that enhanced arenas would do to more to increase franchise value over the long haul than the $100MM larger offer that Hansen made.
- It was Stern's agenda. He seems to have crazy power and he gets what he wants. It's great if your interests are aligned with his and game over if they're not.
- I'd put fan consideration in third place behind the other two.

That all said, I'm still really surprised that the owners made another owner group take $100MM less. So maybe there is something to your world or maybe they just hated the Maloofs for siphoning money from them for so long.

The message of not building an arena and losing your team was well established with the Sonics. The mere fact of leaving a historical team in place versus casually moving another franchise within 5 years to simply replace one in Seattle that couldn't keep their team probably doesn't look stable for the league as a whole.

Like I said, if all it takes to move a team is to simply outbid everyone else, then any team...at any time...could be moved anywhere if the money is right, which is the wrong way to run a cohesive league.

As stated earlier, if the Seattle group wanted to offer $100m more and put forth an iron clad guarantee (which may not mean that much as seen in Seattle's case) to keep the team in Sacramento, then the Board of Governors would have likely approved.

Remember, they voted down the relocation, not the sale of the team so your insistence that the owners "made" the Maloofs take $100 million less is not accurate. The owners voted not to allow the franchise to be moved from Sacramento to Seattle.

 

[mobes23]

I'd say someone sure likes the Stern Koolaid. With him headed out the door soon (but not soon enough), I guess we won't know for sure what any of this all meant, but it'll be interesting to see how things change/don't change under Silver. And, it'll be interesting to see if Hansen comes back with an offer for another team, waits for expansion or gives it up.

The realist in me says the owners' greed will win out against concerns for the fans over the long haul, but it'd be great if you were right.

Edit: Sorry, one other takeaway from this crazy process is that owners and buyers will be a lot more sly going forward. No owner wanting to move their team will do it without first sabotaging local arena attempts so they can point the finger. No prospective owner wanting to buy and move a team will admit it on the front end. They'll sabotage it the same way Bennett did and move the team when they can. If they were attempting to prevent another Seattle, they've actually increased the likelihood that it will happen again. The only friend of the fans would be a nice long lease, which would prevent those kind of games. Unfortunately, our lease is starting to get long in the tooth.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

what "Stern" Kool Aid? If there is an interested group that wants to keep the Kings in Sacramento and they agreed to fund a stadium (their old one was pretty horrible)...then what's the problem?

Sacramento is the only one with a stake to lose here. They have an NBA franchise, Seattle does not. Seattle had EVERYTHING to gain from uprooting a franchise. Honestly, you speak as the Sacramento King's franchise is ENTITLED to Seattle and anything differing from that is "drinking Stern's Kool Aid" like its some big scandal. Its pretty cut and dry. They don't want to move the Kings to Seattle since there is interested parties who want to keep it in town.

This whole incident should add comfort to the Blazers staying in Portland...showing that a small market team will have the support of the NBA Board of Governor's if there is a hostile takeover attempt by an outside party (Hansen's group) as long as an ownership group exists that will stay locally and it just isn't a bidding war. Of course, you may say that this may have Seattle "target" the Blazers if Allen is going to sell. Well, any city can "target" the Blazers if there is money and interest...so big deal.

Even if our arena is "long in the tooth", its not a dilapidated shithole like Key Arena/Arco Arena were, so no worries there. Having a corporation put some naming rights on the Rose Garden may actually strengthen the long term viability.

 

[mobes23]

what "Stern" Kool Aid? If there is an interested group that wants to keep the Kings in Sacramento and they agreed to fund a stadium (their old one was pretty horrible)...then what's the problem?

Sacramento is the only one with a stake to lose here. They have an NBA franchise, Seattle does not. Seattle had EVERYTHING to gain from uprooting a franchise. Honestly, you speak as the Sacramento King's franchise is ENTITLED to Seattle and anything differing from that is "drinking Stern's Kool Aid" like its some big scandal. Its pretty cut and dry. They don't want to move the Kings to Seattle since there is interested parties who want to keep it in town.

This whole incident should add comfort to the Blazers staying in Portland...showing that a small market team will have the support of the NBA Board of Governor's if there is a hostile takeover attempt by an outside party (Hansen's group) as long as an ownership group exists that will stay locally and it just isn't a bidding war. Of course, you may say that this may have Seattle "target" the Blazers if Allen is going to sell. Well, any city can "target" the Blazers if there is money and interest...so big deal.

Even if our arena is "long in the tooth", its not a dilapidated shithole like Key Arena/Arco Arena were, so no worries there. Having a corporation put some naming rights on the Rose Garden may actually strengthen the long term viability.

I'm saying that your take is exactly what Stern would want you to say. He would give you an A+.

I'm not saying Seattle is entitled to anything. You think the city where the team resides is entitled. I'm saying the owners aren't just entitled, they are titled...they own the team. You are hoping that the owners will put the fans first (and I do too) and leave money on the table, but I'm guessing that their own increase profits will win the day more often than not.

As a Blazer fan, I don't take any comfort in the Sacramento decision. The only way I would be comforted is if I felt that Portland would pay whatever amounts an owner or the NBA would demand...and I don't think Portland would. The city would try, but it would have it's limits...quite possibly more than other cities.

Key Arena isn't a dilapidated shithole...it's the same age as the Rose Garden and it's a very nice but VERY undersized arena that is lacking in amenities. You are looking at the Rose Garden as it compares today, but the key is how it compares to other arenas ten years from now. How many new arenas will be built between now and then? I've seen sketches of the proposed arenas in both Sacramento and Seattle (which, by the way, Hansen is still apparently pursuing) and they're pretty cool. Those are what we'll be needing to look at.

 

[THE HCP]

So what's gong to happen with Seattle's new proposed arena? Hansen won't build it still right?


Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5...FAMS!

 

[mobes23]

So what's gong to happen with Seattle's new proposed arena? Hansen won't build it still right?


Sent from HCPs Baller-Ass iPhone 5...FAMS!

Actual construction can't begin until an NBA team is approved to go to Seattle, but apparently, he's continuing to move through the permitting and environmental review process. If that stops, it'd probably be the first sign that he's giving up. The signed arena deal between Hansen, the City and the County has something like a 5 year term. If there's no team in town by then, the arena deal just expires. That said, there's a mayoral race in town this fall and the incumbent pro-arena mayor isn't looking too good for re-election. One of the candidates is hardcore against it. Things could go south fast if the wrong guy is elected.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I'm saying that your take is exactly what Stern would want you to say. He would give you an A+.

I'm not saying Seattle is entitled to anything. You think the city where the team resides is entitled. I'm saying the owners aren't just entitled, they are titled...they own the team. You are hoping that the owners will put the fans first (and I do too) and leave money on the table, but I'm guessing that their own increase profits will win the day more often than not.

As a Blazer fan, I don't take any comfort in the Sacramento decision. The only way I would be comforted is if I felt that Portland would pay whatever amounts an owner or the NBA would demand...and I don't think Portland would. The city would try, but it would have it's limits...quite possibly more than other cities.

Key Arena isn't a dilapidated shithole...it's the same age as the Rose Garden and it's a very nice but VERY undersized arena that is lacking in amenities. You are looking at the Rose Garden as it compares today, but the key is how it compares to other arenas ten years from now. How many new arenas will be built between now and then? I've seen sketches of the proposed arenas in both Sacramento and Seattle (which, by the way, Hansen is still apparently pursuing) and they're pretty cool. Those are what we'll be needing to look at.

Key Arena was built in 1962. I guess it was RENOVATED around the same time, but that's not even close to being the same. I guess I must be drinking that Kool Aid again and I should be seeing it as the same.

The Rose Garden is actually a better arena than Staples Center...I'm not really worried about the long term viability of the RG.