I certainly hope you are right about Maloofs wanting to stay. You could even convince me that it is a good thing that they're exploring other options just to put pressure on Sacramento to come up with a deal fast and that that is a good thing. As long as they're in Sacramento they have my unwavering loyalty. But if they bail, well you saw my previous post.
There will always be a "worst arena in the league". There will always be shiny new arena that makes all other arenas look plain. There will always be cities willing to throw themselves at teams looking to bail. I just draw a line where my loyalty ends and in some cases, I reserve a special kind of animosity for teams that move. This would be such a case.
There were so many different initiatives over the years that I cannot believe it is so one sided and that all deals fell through because of everyone other then MSE. And Sacramento is almost perfect NBA city - small enough for an NBA franchise to have monopoly on sports event dollars, big enough to support a team. Like Portland. Or Milwaukee.
On the flip side, much, much bigger franchises have taken bum deals just to get a stadium/renovation deal. Chicago Bears are charter member of NFL, hell Halas pretty much founded NFL, in the 3rd largest Market in USA (and World's 18th largest economy at one time) and they got such a bum deal on new Soldier Field that Forbes is knocking them down on value to a Tampa Bay level (to get a stadium renovation and development, they gave up bunch of revenue, whole streams of it). And all they had to do to get _everything_ was to move to the suburbs of Chicago. Like 25 miles tops. And for every example like Sonics there is an example of owners giving something up or paying their way to stay in their community.
So, I don't want to hear it about Maloofs not getting a deal or running out of time. They sure don't look like they would sell to get out from "under it".
1) So the only way it can true that the Maloofs want to stay has to be that they don't leave, right? That's hogwash. The Kings have been trying to get a deal done for years. Could have sold. Could have moved. Its been over a decade. None of that counts?
2) Oh and if they really want a deal done to stay in Sacramento, they could always just take a bad deal from the city, even though the city would use the building three times as much and generate less than half the revenue. The same city that has steadfastly refused to get a deal done, through wildy varying circumstances. The Bears, in a different league and a team that probably clears 25 million in profit every season and sells out every game, took a bad deal from Chicago, so the Kings and every other team should do the same for their community? Even though the community leaders have all but told them to forget about a new arena several times? Again, unfair.
3) On top of that, the way I remember it is that the city was always insistent that the Maloofs fund the whole project independently.
4) Don't take this personally, but communities like to claim ownership of a team, but don't want to be bothered with the funding issues when a new arena is necessary. So a team that moves gets the ill will of the city forever, even though the city refused to get the arena done -- for years. Its like the Baltimore Colts. 30 yeas later, the city has a new team and has won a championship, but they still hate the Colts. Doesn't make sense to me. If you want to keep the team, and they need an arena, don't try to seize the team from the owner.
At a certain point, its time for a decision to be made. This was always a possibility. The city hasn't responded for over a decade, and now its the team and ownership just itching to flee the town? Then why didn't they leave five years ago?
Like I said, I get not being a fan anymore. But I don't get the hatred. Seems incredibly misplaced.