Sacramento Kings moving franchise to the OC, CA.

Down the road, the upside in Oklahoma City is far greater than Seattle.

 

Why?

 

Along with Steve Garvey. Oh, the possibilities ...

 

There are quite large discrepancies throughout the reporting. LAT says Johnson pitched a new arena plan to NBA; Sac Bee says all he pitched was a commitment of corporate sponsors to spend $10M next year buying tix and advertising.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/23/3573282/sacramento-kings-status-a-mystery.html

Everyone seems to be in agreement though that the key will be the NBA's trip to Sacto next week to see if Johnson's claims hold any merit. If he is promising a new arena that involves any public money, particularly considering that city's status as one of the most overbuilt and foreclosed-upon towns in America, my guess is the NBA will find Johnson is full of shit and the move could be back on.

Personally, I think they'll stick around for one more year, do the fake-ass Clay Bennett thing of saying they tried to make it work, and then be gone. And maybe the non-move will force the Maloofs to sell, which would be doubly great for the NBA.

 

For starters, Seattle civic leaders were in no way shape or form going to commit to build a new arena. The team would either move somewhere or be stuck at KeyArena indefinitely.

Oklahoma City was/is an emerging market that didn't have any other major league professional franchises. It was, like San Antonio and Salt Lake City, the only game in town. Not sure it was head and shoulders above, say, Louisville, but the fan support has been excellent, helped of course by the fact the team has improved every year.

Once Bennett bought the team, I never thought for a moment he was sincere about trying to keep it in Seattle, anymore than Jim Balsille would keep a team in Nashville or Phoenix. He had to give it lip service, of course. But even he later admitted that if Seattle had built a new arena, he would have sought to sell the team and buy some other franchise that was more movable.

 

Ok, watched the whole sonicsgate.org film. Pretty well done and I recall a lot of that, having lived in the region at the time.

The whole scenario was just one mess after another. The Washington politicians were morons who practically begged the team to leave. Schultz knew damn well what he was doing when he sold the team to Bennett. He didn't care and why should he? He got out of a horrible business deal and might a nice profit that helped him recoup some of his losses. Why should he care where the team plays?

Bennett never was serious about getting a new arena and the politicians weren't going to listen to him, Schultz or anyone else. Where were all these "Save Our Sonics" yahoos when this was happening? Any of them willing to step up and put their money where their mouths were? Seattle leads the nation in millionaires per capita, yet no one could be found to buy the team until it was too late?

The team's been gone three years and no one has lifted a finger on plans for a new arena, which is the cornerstone to EVER getting an NBA or NHL team. Yet the horrifically overpriced Safeco Field plays home to smaller and smaller crowds every night in a city that supposedly cared about, of all things, baseball?

Over 30 years, I've watched four major professional sports franchises (Jazz, Oilers, Grizzlies, Sonics) pack up and leave cities where I either lived on lived close to. In each case, ownership and civic leadership bungled things so badly that by the time they left, my attitude was "good ridance"!! It's a painful lesson for die hard fans, to be sure, and part of me empathizes with hockey fans in Phoenix and basketball fans in Sacramento and NFL fans in Minnesota. But to me the moral of the story was not to allow myself to become emotionally attached to a team. Players move on. Coaches move on. Owners move on. So do franchises.

Back to the Sacramento scenario, it's no secret that the team's future hinges on getting a new arena built. I'm skeptical the state or city will be willing to cough up enough cash to get it done, not in this economy at this time, anyway. But time will tell.

 

It's simply a manifestation of the deeply-ingrained sense of entitlement of the billionaires.

They believe they deserve fan support, they believe they deserve corporate support, they believe they deserve taxpayer-paid arenas, they believe they deserve exemption from every antitrust law under the sun, simply because they are who they are. And if they don't get it, they'll take their ball and go where they can find some other suckers to bleed.

 

A city does not need a major sports franchise. Starman makes ot sound like owners force cities to pay up. While it is true some franchises would leave, it is still a choice by politicians and voters.

 

you once again prove you have no idea what you are talking about

 

KeyArena is 15 years old after the renovation and ARCO arena is 23 years old after its construction. I'd be willing to bet that most of us live in homes that are at least that old or older. This is the shit that pisses me off the most about professional sports. I'm sure every one of these fucking corporate assholes has told its ham-and-egger employees that they'll have to "tighten their belts" while they go and crybaby for new palaces. Think of the arrogance it takes to ask the state of California and city of Sacramento, two entities that are very much broke, to build you a new half a billion dollar playground. It's ALMOST as arrogant as George Shinn asking for a NEW Charlotte Coliseum 10 years after he already received a brand new Charlotte Coliseum.

 

Would you mind being more specific?

 

I take it you're not familiar with this posters history.

Anyone who think OKC is a better long term market than Seattle is insane.