Might as well go all out on the divisional realignment :grin: Atlantic: Boston Celtics Brooklyn Nets New York Knicks Philadelphia 76ers Washington Wizards Central: Cleveland Cavaliers Detroit Pistons Indiana Pacers Memphis Grizzlies Toronto Raptors Southeast: Atlanta Hawks Charlotte Bobcats Miami Heat New Orleans Pelicans Orlando Magic Southwest: Dallas Mavericks Houston Rockets Oklahoma City Thunder Phoenix Suns San Antonio Spurs Northwest: Chicago Bulls Denver Nuggets Milwaukee Bucks Minnesota Timberwolves Utah Jazz Pacific: Golden State Warriors Los Angeles Clippers Los Angeles Lakers Portland Trailblazers Seattle Supersonics
I like the idea, but Chicago has too much history in the East. I think the only franchises that flip should conferences would be Milwaukee and Memphis.
So why does Seattle deserve a franchise more again? <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/a1UUTlcCisU?list=UUMEKe36S1u-LRIfu80_n_gg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Because Seattle is located in King county and the synergies = awesome The other thing is that the Seattle Metro area has a lot more corporations & rich folks willing and able to buy luxury boxes, PSL's, and other premium things that feed the NBA revenue beast.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nba/2020882373_kings29.html The NBA's Relocation Committee, lead by none other than Oklahoma City's Clay Bennett, is set to deliver a recommendation today to the other league owners. Although this isn't a final vote, it seems like it could influence the decision heavily. Could the NBA have played this any worse? Stern keeps dragging out the decision and, thus, gives them impression that he's firmly in Sacramento's corner and creates that impression that he's actively trying to burn Seattle a second time. While I'm tempted to say "Good, a city facing the loss of its team should always get the inside track," the Sacramento saga is nothing new. Even though the Maloofs did not advertise the negotiations with Hansen, no California-based investors were looking to buy the team before Kevin Johnson's last-ditch effort. From a business perspective, Seattle makes so much more sense. Everything I've read indicates that Sacramento's arena plan is still up-in-the-air, whereas Hansen owns the land in Seattle and is ready to start digging. Additionally, the size of Seattle over Sacramento, and the fact that the closest team would be Portland, has to appealing. It's shameful how the NBA abandoned the Pacific Northwest (allowing Vancouver and Seattle to leave) and the new Sonics could go a long way to rectifying that. The size of the city and metro area dwarfs Sacramento and the latter has no appeal for free agent signings, especially with the toxic culture of the past decade. It's sad that a city like Sacramento, which had one good window of competitive play in the early 2000s, could lose its team, but Seattle is a better market. Although, this could all be fixed with expansion.
I bet Seattle is chosen but the NBA wanted the decision to appear very agonizing and difficult to reach because Sacramento is fighting so hard. Agreed it would be very cruel to deny Seattle. Expansion is a very bad idea for the NBA. If anything, a couple of franchises should be shut down.
For what it's worth, I do think they'll recommend a move to Seattle. Their offer is, if reports are to be believed, $25-50 million more than Sacramento's and they own the land in Seattle to build a stadium; Sacramento doesn't have that. Another factor is how difficult it is to get anything of this scale built in California - Washington has cleared all of the legal hurdles to a new Sonics Arena. If contraction were ever an option, I think that Charlotte and Milwaukee are obvious candidates. Milwaukee can't fill an arena for the playoffs against Miami and Charlotte has been a failure since its inception. Jordan's notorious penny-pinching ways are only hurting the team more. A name change back to Hornets won't do anything to help, either. REEKO, I know you've been very vocal against Seattle - is it because of the fans being so vocal or that Sacramento has been held hostage? Both have been bad. But, do you believe that Sacramento makes more business sense than Seattle? As fans, we lose sight of the fact that the NBA really doesn't care about us - they care about the money. Ultimately, I think this will come down to which market will generate the most revenue for the league and Seattle has more potential to do that than Sacramento.
I'm not sure why Los Angeles has 2 teams, we could also shut down the Toronto Raptors, no body wants to be there anyway.
Toronto makes a ton of money and is owned by Maple Leaf Sports, which also owns the Maple Leafs. As stated, the NBA is about making money. Just because the Raptors aren't on your radar doesn't mean they don't have a better average attendance than 17 other teams including playoff teams like the Rockets, Nuggets, Nets and Pacers (Source) Los Angeles has the population and money to support two teams, too. You can't base your argument on geography alone, dog.
Problem is the NBA can't have it both ways. You can't ask for fans if you get a reputation that sports is about business and fandom is nothing more than an after thought. Rockets fans seems to have a bad recollection of what almost happened when Les threatened to move the team. I don't wish that on any fan and I'm not going to sell out just because a team in Seattle will make more money than a team in Sacremento. What about Milawakee? What about Minnisota? What about Memphis? If the NBA could make more money moving those teams to Major markets it doesn't mean they should.
Take back the Bobcats. At least if the Kings were good the fans would show. Nobody in NC gives a rats ass about the Bobcats. Not to mention they are horrible on purpose.
They should be moved somewhere; it's really a franchise that exists becasue George Shinn is a horrible human being, and I guess because North Carolina has enough people to support a basketball team, but something about it doesn't work. IMO it's probably better placed in teh research triangle area since that's the basketball heartland. I know it's ACC country but it still seems a better idea than Charlotte, which is a weird disjointed city.
I understand the business side of things, I was just saying that about LA because its not fair to have 2 teams in the same city you basically 2 shots at winning a championship, that's all. IMO they should keep the Kings in Sacramento and move the Clippers to Seattle if its such a great market.
We buy into the fallacy that NBA, its players, representatives and others care about us. It's part of what makes sports appealing. Unfortunately, especially under Stern, it's not the case and there's no going back. Under his watch, the Kings, Clippers, Grizzlies, Nets, Hornets and Sonics have all moved for issues not related to fans and community support of the team. Many markets have been gouged into subsidizing expensive arenas for teams that they can't afford. This is the price of "community" in 21st-century sports. If those cities can't support their franchises, the precedents set by David Stern are the writing on the wall: they will move to another city willing to bend over backwards for them. It's a shame that the community can't come together and own the team, like the Green Bay Packers, or have involvement in administrative affairs like your beloved Barcelona. Sacramento has had the lowest attendance, in one of the smallest media markets, in the league for the past few years. They do not financially pull their weight and, no matter the good intentions of the people of Sacramento, Stern's actions over the decades have it clear that doesn't matter.
Move Sacramento to Seattle (+150k pop) Move Charlotte to Nashville (-141k pop) Move Milwaukee to Austin (+223k pop) Sac/Seattle For all the reasons mentioned above. The population and demographics for Seattle give the franchise a better chance of success. Char/Nash Nashville, even though it's smaller than Charlotte in population, has had great success with the Titans. 14th in the NFL in attendance (even though its one of the smallest cities) and 100% capacity attendance for their games. Nashville is also conveniently close to the Kentucky border (a big basketball state). Milw/Austin The population and demographics for Austin are great. An NBA team would be the only pro ticket in town.
