Sacramento or Seattle?
If you were in charge, where would you send the kings?
Pro Seattle: *the new investors have deeper pockets then the the new Sacramento investors looking to buy the team.
* The city has always been great for basketball, just lost the sonics because the city funded brand new arenas for the NFL and MLB teams and didn't want to invest in another new arena costing more tax dollars. So a Oklahoma group jumped on that opportunity. But now the city is willing to build a new arena and everything is in place for the return of basketball.
*sacramento has not sold tickets well for about 5-7 years. Can the NBA trust that the fan support will be back like the old days just because of new ownership?
Pro's Sacramento: * the city has no other sports teams and showed true dedication for almost 2 decades from the 80's, 90's and early 2000's.
*The city has approved a new arena and a group of wealthy investors is looking to start fresh after the maloofs went broke and gave up on the kings thus causing the fans to return the favor. the pieces are in place to give mayor Kevin Johnson and the citizens the first shot at keeping their team. I can never recall any team leaving a city where the city stepped up and agreed to build a new arena and meet all financial expectations from the NBA.
I know Seattle Die-hard basketball fans want a team to call their own, but they couldn't possibly wish upon another devoted city what happened to them. The Kings are to Sacramento almost like what the Jazz are to Utah.
The Kings could have a bright future, success (winning) and $-wise with new ownership. The fan base can be revived.
Sonics fans would still be sour as $#!+ that "their" championship caliber team is now playing in Oklahoma City.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I'm biased on this one. I lived in sac for 7 years and still visit yearly as I have fam there. I will be pissed if the kings leave. That city loves them and doesn't have anything else to lean on. It would be a shot to the gut for tons of people I know personally. I'm not a kings fan, but I enjoy having them there and having that rivalry with my friends and family from there. Seattle deserves a team no doubt and now with the money there, I see no reason not to expand one franchise in the beautiful pacific northwest.
It's a shame they don't just give Seattle an expansion team like the NFL did to restore the Cleveland Browns when their team moved to Baltimore to become the Ravens. This situation sucks because some city that deserves an NBA team is going to lose out.
I truly wonder what decision will be made considering the Seattle offer is monetarily higher. Its hard to imagine the owners not approving the deal that will raise the value of their teams the most.
When in doubt, leave the team with the incumbent city.
While Seattle might be pissed they missed out again, it still wouldn't be as bad as Sacramento losing their team.
Give them an expansion. Helps the economy grow by keeping jobs for the Kings (stadium workers) while also gaining new workers in the Seattle arena. It also employs more players in the league. I'd personally love to see 32 teams in the league. Give a expansion to Seattle and give one to some place on the east coast.
Another expansion team?
The league is already watered down enough as it is...
I do not think the league is watered down, simply that most teams are bad at utilizing talent. When teams work well together under a strong system they do not need multiple superstars to be effective. Look at the Nuggets this year and the Pistons when they had the Billups, Prince, Wallace, ect team.
For years the higher ups in the NBA have postulated about Europe and worldwide play, but that would require more teams or for Adam Silver to reveal he is really a poorly aged Marty Mcfly. Owners always seem to be against expansion because it would hurt their bottom line but what is good for basketball and the NBA may not always be what lines the owners pockets with the most money, David Stern needs to step up and throw around some of the [email protected] clout he is supposed to have and do what is best for both cities.
First off, lets definitely not do any expansion.
Secondly, I want Sac to keep the Kings. When they are good, they sell out, and they have a strong fan base. It is an absolute rarity for a small market team to do well when the team is bad. Hell, Seattle would do poorly if the team was bad. The only small markets that have seriously rabid fan bases no matter what are Portland and Utah.
I do believe Seattle deserves a team, and I think it should come from either Minnesota, Milwaukee, Charlotte, or Indiana.
None of them have great fan bases, I think a couple of them are going to be selling soon, and I just think that would be better than SAC losing the Kings. If SAC keeps the team, I think Milwaukee could be in trouble. They could very well lose Jennings, Ellis, and Redick this offseason, and be beyond terrible next year.
And as far as Indiana goes, they have a good team right now and yet whenever they play a popular team, half the crowd is rooting for the other team. That's pretty sad.
Move the Bobcats to Seattle. Sorry Cats fans!