I could still see the NBA expanding in the East (despite the West growing faster). Although, I wouldn't be to shocked to see a team in the West (with the Hornets or Wolves moving to the East). My money's on Montreal.
I gotta say, I admire your commitment to the romanticism of local sports. I really wish I could still view it that way. Too often, the Clay Bennetts, Jeffrey Lorias and Maloofs of the world make it hard to hold onto the belief that pro teams can be defined by the people who pay at the gate and cheer in the stands. On that note, I am happy for the fans of Sacramento - they are the rare example of a city that has fought the monied interests of modern professional sports and won. The writing on the wall, which I found too hard to ignore, dictated that Seattle would get the team because of the money, the market size and the firmness of the offer. However, Sacramento won and that's that. Unfortunately, there are still some troubling implications here which hurt the fans: The NBA appears to be siding with an arena plan that is largely funded with public money instead of one privately funded by Chris Hansen. Do not think that did not play into the owners' decision today. They know how to enrich themselves and arenas paid for the public do that more than anything else. While there was no precedent for taking a team away from a city that has done as much as Sacramento, there was likely the desire to avoid going back on one of David Stern's proudest achievements: publicly-subsidized arenas. For a city like Sacramento that has been, frankly, decimated by the economic collapse, this may end up hurting the town for years. Make no mistake, the league put itself in this PR bind. They allowed the Maloofs to rip up their first agreement with Sacramento, post Anaheim threats, and sell to Hansen under the table. However, this could very well destroy the NBA for good in Seattle.
I don't think of it that way. They aren't forcing the Kings to stay, as the ownership will change. They aren't letting one group move the team to another city when the original city has stepped up the plate to keep them there. This isn't a AL Davis vs the NFL about LA/Oakland situation. This is one city trying to steal another cities team and the original city stepped up to the plate. Why should the Kings lose their team when a new owner stepped up and the city has agreed to build a new stadium?
Sports radio in Seattle is freaking brutal on the NBA, Stern, and Bennett. I think everyone here expected the team to get passed right through the approval process. It seems like there's more anger than when the sonics moved.
Perfectly said. SacTown definitely deserves to keep their team and they stepped up, it never was Seattle's team. Seattle does deserve a team though and hopefully they will soon get one. Perhaps Toronto should move there.
How many times does it have to be said in this thread? Toronto is a huge city with a devoted fan base, an ownership with deep pockets (that now includes Tim Leiweke, of AEG fame) and was 13th in attendance this year.
You're going to compare an owner who delivered 2 championships in a 20 year old building, who eventually honored their lease for 5 years, and negotiated in good faith to a corporate raider who bought and sabotaged a team with the express purpose of moving it to his hometown, negotiated in bad faith, and was unsatisfied with a building that had been renovated only 10 years prior? If the team had left, I'm sure Houston fans would be campaigning just as hard to pick up the next available relocation candidate, and would be just as crushed as Seattle right now. Honestly, I find it incredibly ironic that people having almost lost a team here are so willing to champion Clay Bennett and the Zombie Sonics, while patting Seattle on the back and saying "you'll get 'em next time". Sacramento is a bankruptcy caused by horrible management, Seattle was a hostile takeover. Somehow we praise the league for rewarding the first and kicking the second to the curb.
I'm all about nostalgia. I really hope the Sonics return as an expansion team, the Bobcats become the Hornets again and the east coast gets another team. Preferably a Pittsburgh or Kansas team.
Because it's total hypocrisy for the NBA, David Stern and Clay F'ing Bennett to block a sale after they fast-tracked a move from Seattle? David Stern and Clay Bennett never gave the opportunity to Seattle to keep their team, they were gone before the ink dried on the sale of the franchise. Now all of a sudden they're going to block the sale of the Kings because they're going to be moved? Either both teams should have moved, or neither should have moved. They opened the door to this relocation strategy, they're the ones that should have to abide by it.
So because they let one city get screwed they should let another city get screwed too? And I don't believe Seattle had the govt sign off on a stadium deal but I may be wrong. I'm sorry Seattle got screwed. That doesn't mean other cities should get screwed when they step up to the plate.
You are wrong. Both the City of Seattle and King County signed a memorandum of understanding on the arena deal. The land has been procured and the arena and financing had been approved. The terms of the deal would have been a real money maker for the city and county. The Seattle arena had already had the financing approved and the environmental work almost complete. Seattle is at least a year ahead of Sacramento in terms of being able to build it. This has all the earmarks of being Stern having something against Seattle. That was not my original thought. Bleacher Report and the Times have mentioned it. I remember, in 2010, people were still wearing Sonics gear...two years after the team left. This is a passionate fan base....and the league has crapped all over them for a second time. Not smart.
Montreal would be sick. It is a 3.9 million people city, .the only major sports are NHL and MLS in the city. I went to a NBA game in Montreal back in 2010, pre-season game Raptors Vs Knicks. The atmosphere was crazy. Montreal would be my choice (I live near it) but I don't think it will happen.
One thing that I wonder is how long it will take Chris Hanson to sue the NBA to recover the $30 million deposit he paid on the purchase of the Kings. That's right. I think this is going to court on an allegation of tortious interference with contract.
It's a travesty that the Sonics moved from Seattle in the first place. How does a team move from Seattle with a pop of 3.5 million lose a franchise that has been there decades, to a city of only 1.3 million? Total travesty.
Teams that could probably get an expansion team: Seattle, St. Louis, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas
From what I've read, any legal challenge by Hansen would guarantee that Seattle never gets a team. It doesn't make sense to me, but that's what's being claimed over on the NBA subreddit. At this point, Seattle is a boogeyman for every other market. Don't want to build an arena? Seattle!
