Good article on the state of the NBA with lots of Kings stuff.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110425&sportCat=nba
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110425&sportCat=nba
Bill Simmons on Small Markets - Kings
- Thread starter Section 101
- Start date
Not sure you really want to be held upa s one of the teams being used as contraction leverage". 
Also given the wild crowd in New Orleans for the playoffs, where they are doing well, and the Kings fans' own response here, not sure its much of a viable threat anyway at this point.
Also given the wild crowd in New Orleans for the playoffs, where they are doing well, and the Kings fans' own response here, not sure its much of a viable threat anyway at this point.
If you can look past the conclusion about possible contraction and not worry about the Evans comment … it’s a very solid and objective history on how we got here.
Also it should be noted that Bill has great NBA sources and he is the first person to print that that the Maloofs borrowed the full 75 million and haven’t paid anything back.
Bills take on Evans is pretty clear. Great talent and an amazing scorer. But unclear whether he can play winning basketball. It’s the same debate, whether he’s too much like Iverson, Steve Francis, or Marbury. I point that not to hijack the thread and turn this into an Evans debate – there is a thread already going for that.
The fault with his analogy this that we both have good GMs. He just cant’ give credit to Bennet. The point is this – OKC got lucky in the lottery and they got a true superstar, who does everything the right way, and they’ve got an owner that lets his GM do whatever he wants and spends to collect assets from teams trying to cut payroll (Maynor trade, taking Kurt Thomas to get picks, buying picks.) Whereas, our owners aren’t out there buying picks and our GM is forced to make trades that don’t bring back more salary, even if it could net us picks. And our best players might be great, but have enough concerns that it’s not inconceivable that Evans can put up numbers but not play winning basketball (there are a lot of those guys in the league) That’s his point … and you shouldn’t let it overshadow the other 95% of the story.
Finally, I'm sure he's been working on this for a few weeks and the story made a huge shift on Friday. That's why his conclusion is probably a little off and dated at this point.
Also it should be noted that Bill has great NBA sources and he is the first person to print that that the Maloofs borrowed the full 75 million and haven’t paid anything back.
Bills take on Evans is pretty clear. Great talent and an amazing scorer. But unclear whether he can play winning basketball. It’s the same debate, whether he’s too much like Iverson, Steve Francis, or Marbury. I point that not to hijack the thread and turn this into an Evans debate – there is a thread already going for that.
The fault with his analogy this that we both have good GMs. He just cant’ give credit to Bennet. The point is this – OKC got lucky in the lottery and they got a true superstar, who does everything the right way, and they’ve got an owner that lets his GM do whatever he wants and spends to collect assets from teams trying to cut payroll (Maynor trade, taking Kurt Thomas to get picks, buying picks.) Whereas, our owners aren’t out there buying picks and our GM is forced to make trades that don’t bring back more salary, even if it could net us picks. And our best players might be great, but have enough concerns that it’s not inconceivable that Evans can put up numbers but not play winning basketball (there are a lot of those guys in the league) That’s his point … and you shouldn’t let it overshadow the other 95% of the story.
Finally, I'm sure he's been working on this for a few weeks and the story made a huge shift on Friday. That's why his conclusion is probably a little off and dated at this point.
At the same time, he reported that the city loaned $77M to the Maloofs to build an arena. Since the $77M in question was loaned to the previous ownership and the arena was already built at the time -- both facts widely available in the public record -- it's entirely possible that pronouncements he makes about information that is not in the public record might be a bit less than gospel.
While he's certainly well-connected, I don't think his primary function is a reporter (and I think he'd be the first to admit this), so I'm not sure we should trust that report about the $75 million. He's already had to correct the column once regarding the Daniels trade.
That said, he does a good job (as he usually does) boiling down the issues in both an insightful and entertaining manner. Fans around the league are getting an accurate (and sympathetic) take on our plight, and if nothing else the video of Grant and Jerry's tearful signoff is getting even more views.
That said, he does a good job (as he usually does) boiling down the issues in both an insightful and entertaining manner. Fans around the league are getting an accurate (and sympathetic) take on our plight, and if nothing else the video of Grant and Jerry's tearful signoff is getting even more views.
I really hesitate to write this for fear of hijacking this thread and if I do I'm sorry, but I'm awfully curious.
On the 18th I wrote Simmons a letter responding to his "My feelings on the Kings move in four paragraphs" during his NBA post-season run down article.
Here it is (wrapped in spoilers, because it's rather long) ... do you guys think it actually worked?
On the 18th I wrote Simmons a letter responding to his "My feelings on the Kings move in four paragraphs" during his NBA post-season run down article.
Here it is (wrapped in spoilers, because it's rather long) ... do you guys think it actually worked?
"I am incensed by your ambivalence toward the Kings' move. Mayor Johnson pulled off a miracle at the Board of Governors meeting, so we now have two weeks to save our team and you are not helping. I have to get through to you somehow because for whatever reason people listen to you. You have a sway with public opinion and if you tell your cronies "it sucks, but whatever" we're screwed.
I don't have your appealing frat boy style or your panache. And this is far too long to fit in your "mail bag" and probably even too long for you to bother to read.
All I have is a passion to save my team and if I have to write to you until my fingers bleed, so be it. I am specifically responding to your pithy four paragraph explanation of your feelings on the Kings move:
1) The Sonics' move was a disgrace and a tragedy. You're right, there is no comparison. As such, we serve no purpose by using it as a benchmark or comparing it to the Kings' situation. If the NBA successfully desensitized you from all future awful antics so that only those which are greater than or equal to a cartoonishly villainous plot raise a red flag with you and your fellow journalists, then it might be the greatest business decision the league ever made.
The only true connection worthy of noting between the Seattle and Sacramento situations is that the man at the center of the Sonics move is now in charge of determining the "fairness" of the Kings move. How is the irony of Clay Bennett leading the relocation committee not even registering with you? Also, one of the biggest reported victims of the Donaghy scandal is now at risk of losing the franchise. Consider that as well.
2) I sent you a variation of this when you were doing cartwheels about the prospect of the Kings moving back to Kansas City, but it obviously didn't have an impact on you. You seem as committed as ever to the "they've moved before, it's only fair" lunacy.
Regardless, here is a list of the teams in the 3 major US sports leagues that are in a city other than the one they started in and thus, according to your logic, open to relocation without justified complaint from the locals.
NBA
Los Angeles Lakers
Los Angeles Clippers
Utah Jazz
San Antonio Spurs
Houston Rockets
Golden State Warriors
Detroit Pistons
Philadelphia 76ers
Memphis Grizzles
Sacramento Kings
Oklahoma City Thunder
New Orleans Hornets
Atlanta Hawks
Washington Wizards
NFL
Chicago Bears
Kansas City Chiefs
Washington Redskins
St. Louis Rams
San Diego Chargers
Indianapolis Colts
Baltimore Ravens
Detroit Lions
Tennessee Titans
Arizona Cardinals
MLB
New York Yankees
San Francisco Giants
Los Angeles Dodgers
Oakland Athletics
Atlanta Braves
Minnesota Twins
Texas Rangers
Milwaukee Brewers
Washington Nationals
I know a lot of Chargers fans and if you tried to pull that crap of "the Chargers are from LA, it's only fair if they move back" you're liable to be castrated.
And before you counter with "some of those moves were ages ago," the Kings moved to Sacramento more than a quarter century ago. There are people who have been born, grown-up, graduated college, bought a home and been foreclosed on all during the Sacramento Kings era. On a personal note, I was 3.
3) You're assuming the Sacramento market isn't viable because why - it's a cowtown with poor access to corporate sponsors and a barn for an arena?
One: That "cowtown" is a top 20 TV market (the fine market of Seattle is 15) putting it directly in the middle of the NBA franchises.
Two: In under a week Mayor Johnson was able to round-up $9 million of previously untapped corporate sponsorship (showing that the Maloofs either failed at this for 12 years or simply never made the attempt).
Three: Nobody who is serious disputes that a new arena is desperately needed and the blame that there isn't one falls mostly on Sacramento because of a fractured municipality, a weak-mayor style government and little coordination/cooperation between the city and outlying communities. But the city now has a former NBA all-star as Mayor whose main platform during the election was keeping the Kings by building a new arena (and who flat out nailed his presentation to the Board of Governors), a billionaire in Ron Burkle teamed with local hero Chris Webber willing to buy the team and committed to keep it in Sacramento and a partnership with ICON who together saved the Pittsburgh Penguins (24 TV market BTW, which is, if my math is right, a smaller market than 20) and a suddenly motivated government, populous and business community.
4) Defensible? Have you not followed the story at all? The team is in such an awful position because the Maloofs are poor businessmen and ran it into the ground. After Webber blew out his knee, the Maloofs responded by putting together, season after season, a product of boring and uninspired burnt-out vets, late lottery rookies and MLE undersized Power Forwards led by a carousel of inexperienced and inexpensive coaches in an attempt to simultaneously "stay competitive" and cut costs while charging playoff team prices for tickets driving away and alienating fans. And that's not even mentioning their numerous questionable marketing ploys (gold uniforms).
It's the same plot line as Major League except the owners aren't sinister schemers, they're simply inept and painted themselves into a fiscal corner so the only way to stay solvent is to move to the #2 TV market and become Donald Sterling 2.0.
All of their businesses are hemorrhaging money - they lost majority ownership of the Palms through an ill-advised expansion, folded the Monarchs, got screwed in the Madoff scandal, sold their dad's beer distribution company for quick cash, have taken out loans from everyone willing to give them one (they even have to take out a previously undisclosed personal loan from Samueli just to move) - these are pieces of evidence proving the Maloofs are poor businessmen, not that Sacramento is a nonviable market.
And all this, as previously mentioned, with a multi-billionaire with a history of saving struggling small market franchises waiting in the wings. Interestingly, you say Sacramento simply drew the short straw with owners, but several paragraphs earlier in the same article you have this:
.
• Screwed over the best Canadian player ever (Steve Nash) by allowing Robert Sarver to buy the Suns because he was worth hundreds of millions "on paper" (so what if he didn't have any cash?), causing Nash to miss the Finals because his owner cheaped out from 2005-10.
Which could easily be converted to this, should the NBA approve the move:
- Screwed over fans who produced season long sellouts for 19 of their 26 years by allowing the Maloof Brothers to continue owning the Kings, despite an offer by multi-billionaire Ron Burkle to buy the team and keep it in Sacramento, because the Maloofs were worth hundreds of millions "on paper" (so what if they didn't have any cash?) causing the Kings to move to Anaheim so the Maloofs could get bailed out and eventually bought out by Ducks Owner Henry Samueli anyway.
The Maloofs are attempting to leverage all their other failing businesses by turning the Kings into a purely for-profit venture in Anaheim (again, like Sterling). As you've mentioned, they could have moved the team to a city with a modern arena and a rabid fan base hungry for basketball (Kansas City, Louisville, San Jose) or been viewed as heroes and moved the team to Seattle. But that's not what they're looking for - they are simply trying to keep their heads above water and at this point, Anaheim's potential TV contract and Samueli's personal fortune are their only life boats.
And what's worse, the Maloofs only own 53% of the Kings and the minority owners don't want to move. But the Maloofs stubbornly, selfishly refuse to sell. Even though it's clear they don't know what they're doing, even though their in debt up to their eyeball, they won't sell because their dad once sold the Rockets and said it was his biggest regret.
I too was once a Maloof apologist because I was convinced this was purely the city's inability to get a new arena. But just look at their antics at the Board of Governors meeting. They could care less if a legit arena plan backed by billionaires and a politically determined mayor is on the table. Especially with a new CBA in the works that could potentially provide more revenue for small-market teams. Instead, they acted like spoiled children who didn't get their way declaring "Sacramento will never get another team". They're desperate and drowning in debt because of their own doing and Kings fans are the ones about to pay the price.
I understand your lack of compassion because you'll never have to face what we're going through. No one will ever be able to claim a Celtics or Red Sox owner is losing money and being forced to move the team because Boston is nonviable as a market. And the reason is, because they'll never be able to hide behind that excuse. In bigger cities, if an owner proves to be inept, they sell the team. But for Sacramento, the onus is placed on the city because that's what everyone, like you, simply assumes is the problem.
This will be a defining moment for the NBA. Will they support struggling owners amassing mountains of debt and set a precedent for an exodus to big market money as an escape, or will they support a small market city that has everything going for it except a new arena?
This will also be Sacramento's defining moment. Will the city continue to be seen as a small-time, sleepy government cow-town or while it finally break out of its malaise and become a serious, big time city?
I hope you'll start recognizing it as such."
I don't have your appealing frat boy style or your panache. And this is far too long to fit in your "mail bag" and probably even too long for you to bother to read.
All I have is a passion to save my team and if I have to write to you until my fingers bleed, so be it. I am specifically responding to your pithy four paragraph explanation of your feelings on the Kings move:
1) The Sonics' move was a disgrace and a tragedy. You're right, there is no comparison. As such, we serve no purpose by using it as a benchmark or comparing it to the Kings' situation. If the NBA successfully desensitized you from all future awful antics so that only those which are greater than or equal to a cartoonishly villainous plot raise a red flag with you and your fellow journalists, then it might be the greatest business decision the league ever made.
The only true connection worthy of noting between the Seattle and Sacramento situations is that the man at the center of the Sonics move is now in charge of determining the "fairness" of the Kings move. How is the irony of Clay Bennett leading the relocation committee not even registering with you? Also, one of the biggest reported victims of the Donaghy scandal is now at risk of losing the franchise. Consider that as well.
2) I sent you a variation of this when you were doing cartwheels about the prospect of the Kings moving back to Kansas City, but it obviously didn't have an impact on you. You seem as committed as ever to the "they've moved before, it's only fair" lunacy.
Regardless, here is a list of the teams in the 3 major US sports leagues that are in a city other than the one they started in and thus, according to your logic, open to relocation without justified complaint from the locals.
NBA
Los Angeles Lakers
Los Angeles Clippers
Utah Jazz
San Antonio Spurs
Houston Rockets
Golden State Warriors
Detroit Pistons
Philadelphia 76ers
Memphis Grizzles
Sacramento Kings
Oklahoma City Thunder
New Orleans Hornets
Atlanta Hawks
Washington Wizards
NFL
Chicago Bears
Kansas City Chiefs
Washington Redskins
St. Louis Rams
San Diego Chargers
Indianapolis Colts
Baltimore Ravens
Detroit Lions
Tennessee Titans
Arizona Cardinals
MLB
New York Yankees
San Francisco Giants
Los Angeles Dodgers
Oakland Athletics
Atlanta Braves
Minnesota Twins
Texas Rangers
Milwaukee Brewers
Washington Nationals
I know a lot of Chargers fans and if you tried to pull that crap of "the Chargers are from LA, it's only fair if they move back" you're liable to be castrated.
And before you counter with "some of those moves were ages ago," the Kings moved to Sacramento more than a quarter century ago. There are people who have been born, grown-up, graduated college, bought a home and been foreclosed on all during the Sacramento Kings era. On a personal note, I was 3.
3) You're assuming the Sacramento market isn't viable because why - it's a cowtown with poor access to corporate sponsors and a barn for an arena?
One: That "cowtown" is a top 20 TV market (the fine market of Seattle is 15) putting it directly in the middle of the NBA franchises.
Two: In under a week Mayor Johnson was able to round-up $9 million of previously untapped corporate sponsorship (showing that the Maloofs either failed at this for 12 years or simply never made the attempt).
Three: Nobody who is serious disputes that a new arena is desperately needed and the blame that there isn't one falls mostly on Sacramento because of a fractured municipality, a weak-mayor style government and little coordination/cooperation between the city and outlying communities. But the city now has a former NBA all-star as Mayor whose main platform during the election was keeping the Kings by building a new arena (and who flat out nailed his presentation to the Board of Governors), a billionaire in Ron Burkle teamed with local hero Chris Webber willing to buy the team and committed to keep it in Sacramento and a partnership with ICON who together saved the Pittsburgh Penguins (24 TV market BTW, which is, if my math is right, a smaller market than 20) and a suddenly motivated government, populous and business community.
4) Defensible? Have you not followed the story at all? The team is in such an awful position because the Maloofs are poor businessmen and ran it into the ground. After Webber blew out his knee, the Maloofs responded by putting together, season after season, a product of boring and uninspired burnt-out vets, late lottery rookies and MLE undersized Power Forwards led by a carousel of inexperienced and inexpensive coaches in an attempt to simultaneously "stay competitive" and cut costs while charging playoff team prices for tickets driving away and alienating fans. And that's not even mentioning their numerous questionable marketing ploys (gold uniforms).
It's the same plot line as Major League except the owners aren't sinister schemers, they're simply inept and painted themselves into a fiscal corner so the only way to stay solvent is to move to the #2 TV market and become Donald Sterling 2.0.
All of their businesses are hemorrhaging money - they lost majority ownership of the Palms through an ill-advised expansion, folded the Monarchs, got screwed in the Madoff scandal, sold their dad's beer distribution company for quick cash, have taken out loans from everyone willing to give them one (they even have to take out a previously undisclosed personal loan from Samueli just to move) - these are pieces of evidence proving the Maloofs are poor businessmen, not that Sacramento is a nonviable market.
And all this, as previously mentioned, with a multi-billionaire with a history of saving struggling small market franchises waiting in the wings. Interestingly, you say Sacramento simply drew the short straw with owners, but several paragraphs earlier in the same article you have this:
.
• Screwed over the best Canadian player ever (Steve Nash) by allowing Robert Sarver to buy the Suns because he was worth hundreds of millions "on paper" (so what if he didn't have any cash?), causing Nash to miss the Finals because his owner cheaped out from 2005-10.
Which could easily be converted to this, should the NBA approve the move:
- Screwed over fans who produced season long sellouts for 19 of their 26 years by allowing the Maloof Brothers to continue owning the Kings, despite an offer by multi-billionaire Ron Burkle to buy the team and keep it in Sacramento, because the Maloofs were worth hundreds of millions "on paper" (so what if they didn't have any cash?) causing the Kings to move to Anaheim so the Maloofs could get bailed out and eventually bought out by Ducks Owner Henry Samueli anyway.
The Maloofs are attempting to leverage all their other failing businesses by turning the Kings into a purely for-profit venture in Anaheim (again, like Sterling). As you've mentioned, they could have moved the team to a city with a modern arena and a rabid fan base hungry for basketball (Kansas City, Louisville, San Jose) or been viewed as heroes and moved the team to Seattle. But that's not what they're looking for - they are simply trying to keep their heads above water and at this point, Anaheim's potential TV contract and Samueli's personal fortune are their only life boats.
And what's worse, the Maloofs only own 53% of the Kings and the minority owners don't want to move. But the Maloofs stubbornly, selfishly refuse to sell. Even though it's clear they don't know what they're doing, even though their in debt up to their eyeball, they won't sell because their dad once sold the Rockets and said it was his biggest regret.
I too was once a Maloof apologist because I was convinced this was purely the city's inability to get a new arena. But just look at their antics at the Board of Governors meeting. They could care less if a legit arena plan backed by billionaires and a politically determined mayor is on the table. Especially with a new CBA in the works that could potentially provide more revenue for small-market teams. Instead, they acted like spoiled children who didn't get their way declaring "Sacramento will never get another team". They're desperate and drowning in debt because of their own doing and Kings fans are the ones about to pay the price.
I understand your lack of compassion because you'll never have to face what we're going through. No one will ever be able to claim a Celtics or Red Sox owner is losing money and being forced to move the team because Boston is nonviable as a market. And the reason is, because they'll never be able to hide behind that excuse. In bigger cities, if an owner proves to be inept, they sell the team. But for Sacramento, the onus is placed on the city because that's what everyone, like you, simply assumes is the problem.
This will be a defining moment for the NBA. Will they support struggling owners amassing mountains of debt and set a precedent for an exodus to big market money as an escape, or will they support a small market city that has everything going for it except a new arena?
This will also be Sacramento's defining moment. Will the city continue to be seen as a small-time, sleepy government cow-town or while it finally break out of its malaise and become a serious, big time city?
I hope you'll start recognizing it as such."
Bit long, but some nice hard thudding body blows in there.
Simmons comes off as a fairly flexible wise *** and as you said frat boy rather than a serious determined player who will stick with his planks to matter what, so who knows. I think if the wind blows hard enough in a certain direction, he might just go that way.
Simmons comes off as a fairly flexible wise *** and as you said frat boy rather than a serious determined player who will stick with his planks to matter what, so who knows. I think if the wind blows hard enough in a certain direction, he might just go that way.
He's got a couple of very tight friends that work fairly high up in the NBA. (I'm not your research assistant - its out there a lot, you find it.) So he's got a good source, who would know. Actually, now that I think about it KHTK reported they took the loan but not the amount. Since there is zero evidence on the other side, I think its safe to say this is pretty solid.
While the the purpose of the city's loans was clear and wrong, the details and documents on them have been very cloudy / hard to get.
For example, we all assumed the Maloofs would "own" Arco when the Kings left. I guess all of our posts might be a bit less than gospel.
While the the purpose of the city's loans was clear and wrong, the details and documents on them have been very cloudy / hard to get.
For example, we all assumed the Maloofs would "own" Arco when the Kings left. I guess all of our posts might be a bit less than gospel.
As someone who pleaded with Simmons to write about Kings plight months ago, I could not be much happier with this write up. As recently as 2 weeks ago he was writing that Kings situation is nothing like Sonics situation who were "stolen". He's completely turned around and he is a very high profile "booster" now for what KJ is trying to do. And all that in the middle of one of the best playoffs in 20 years! The story of Maloofs trying to get bailed out by Anaheim - right or wrong, is now cast in stone and Simmons just gave it ESPN front page pub.
I will be sending Bill a thank you note imminently - he did us all a favor. The fact that he took a dig at Evans and brought up contraction is just Simmons being Simmons. He takes not so subtle digs at LeBron, Wade, Kobe, even his boy KG so it is fair game. Contraction is his straw-man argument for why NBA needs profit sharing and hard cap, he is not advocate of it by any means.
I will be sending Bill a thank you note imminently - he did us all a favor. The fact that he took a dig at Evans and brought up contraction is just Simmons being Simmons. He takes not so subtle digs at LeBron, Wade, Kobe, even his boy KG so it is fair game. Contraction is his straw-man argument for why NBA needs profit sharing and hard cap, he is not advocate of it by any means.
Were details and documents on the $77M loan difficult to get? Sure. There are barriers to that kind of stuff getting out. But the question of to whom the loan was made, and whether or not the arena was already built at the time...not so much.
People around here speculated on the hard stuff, and were wrong. It happens. Simmons was wrong on the easy stuff. As such, it doesn't give me any confidence in his comments (which may well be speculation - he's not a reporter per se) on the hard stuff. Maybe he has NBA sources. I'm not looking it up; it doesn't matter. They certainly didn't help him get the well-known city loan basics right (if he even consulted them for this column). So why should I believe that they helped him get the unknown, unreported stuff right?
Sure, there's a chance that Simmons got his buddies to leak him previously unreported information for this column. But when he doesn't get the basic facts straight it looks a lot more like something he pounded off from memory than a carefully researched document. More likely it's white noise, and that's how I'll be happy to treat it.
People around here speculated on the hard stuff, and were wrong. It happens. Simmons was wrong on the easy stuff. As such, it doesn't give me any confidence in his comments (which may well be speculation - he's not a reporter per se) on the hard stuff. Maybe he has NBA sources. I'm not looking it up; it doesn't matter. They certainly didn't help him get the well-known city loan basics right (if he even consulted them for this column). So why should I believe that they helped him get the unknown, unreported stuff right?
Sure, there's a chance that Simmons got his buddies to leak him previously unreported information for this column. But when he doesn't get the basic facts straight it looks a lot more like something he pounded off from memory than a carefully researched document. More likely it's white noise, and that's how I'll be happy to treat it.
Yeah, I'm sure he pounded off 7 pages of detailed Kings / Maloofs moves over the last three years from memory. Those hyper links and cites show me the story was in no way researched. Come on.
Grant's said the team pulled from the line of credit. Reports regarding the team needing to free up cash are everywhere. KFBK reports teams the team tapped into a max 75 million dollar line of credit. And you admit that Simmons might have the ability to confirm the amount within the NBA ... and there are zero sources on records saying they didn't pull the full 75 .. and its white noise. Right. Not very factorial.
Frankly, I'm confused how much of this is white noise to you. Could you please clarify what you think it white noise (1) that they took the loan; (2) that the max is 75; or (3) that they pulled the max. I'm guessing its' only the third. And why would you doubt that ... because the Maloofs wouldn't want a loan that big ... when they are trying to get another if they need it again? If they just dipped into that fund, they wouldn't need that Anaheim loan and risk losing the team to Samueli. Right?
Also, I find it funny that, you are going to toss aside everything in a 7 page story that looks mostly on the last 3 years of the Kings and the NBA's dealing with them in NY, because of two sentences about a local loan in 1997. And for a national reporter, other than Sam who was and frankly right sort of still is local, you don't think this is enough detail and correct info on the Kings/Maloofs?
But that's life on a board like this ... find the weakest point and use it dismiss relevant and key points if you don't like them.
Grant's said the team pulled from the line of credit. Reports regarding the team needing to free up cash are everywhere. KFBK reports teams the team tapped into a max 75 million dollar line of credit. And you admit that Simmons might have the ability to confirm the amount within the NBA ... and there are zero sources on records saying they didn't pull the full 75 .. and its white noise. Right. Not very factorial.
Frankly, I'm confused how much of this is white noise to you. Could you please clarify what you think it white noise (1) that they took the loan; (2) that the max is 75; or (3) that they pulled the max. I'm guessing its' only the third. And why would you doubt that ... because the Maloofs wouldn't want a loan that big ... when they are trying to get another if they need it again? If they just dipped into that fund, they wouldn't need that Anaheim loan and risk losing the team to Samueli. Right?
Also, I find it funny that, you are going to toss aside everything in a 7 page story that looks mostly on the last 3 years of the Kings and the NBA's dealing with them in NY, because of two sentences about a local loan in 1997. And for a national reporter, other than Sam who was and frankly right sort of still is local, you don't think this is enough detail and correct info on the Kings/Maloofs?
But that's life on a board like this ... find the weakest point and use it dismiss relevant and key points if you don't like them.
That was a phenomenal letter, Lowen. It's hard to imagine that it didn't get his attention, seeing as so many of your points were brought up in his own article. And as you said, his apathy was apparent when he addressed it in the article from a few weeks ago.
This is major pub that our story is getting here -- and the only regret I have is that it hasn't been updated with the past few days of KJ and Co.'s work and the NBA's hints that it's leaning toward keeping the team in Sacramento. (edit: never mind, yes he did update it) Either way though, the main objective was to paint the Maloofs as the "unviable" ones, and in that sense, he knocked it out of the park. The momentum for Sacramento is building on a national scale, especially between Amick at SI and now Simmons with ESPN.
With hope, all of this ill will toward the Maloofs convinces them to realize how far deep in their own **** they are and sell to Burkle, before he uses up his money on the damn Dodgers.
This is major pub that our story is getting here -- and the only regret I have is that it hasn't been updated with the past few days of KJ and Co.'s work and the NBA's hints that it's leaning toward keeping the team in Sacramento. (edit: never mind, yes he did update it) Either way though, the main objective was to paint the Maloofs as the "unviable" ones, and in that sense, he knocked it out of the park. The momentum for Sacramento is building on a national scale, especially between Amick at SI and now Simmons with ESPN.
With hope, all of this ill will toward the Maloofs convinces them to realize how far deep in their own **** they are and sell to Burkle, before he uses up his money on the damn Dodgers.
Last edited:
Fully believe he could afford to, and would, buy both. Controlling interests at least. Dude drops 400 mil on Dodgers and 175 mil on Kings and he's moved only 1/6th of his net worth.
Don't think he would have come out so publicly on both if that wasn't the case. A man in his position doesn't want to let down millions of people.
Don't think he would have come out so publicly on both if that wasn't the case. A man in his position doesn't want to let down millions of people.
Larry, look. I don't have any investment one way or the other about how much of the NBA's credit line the Kings have used. I'm not dismissing the tidbit because I don't like it. I really don't care. You're the one with the emotional investment here. You're the one calling this a "relevant and key point". You're the one who got all excited about how Bill Simmons was "the first person to print that that the Maloofs borrowed the full 75 million and haven’t paid anything back".
I'm simply pointing out that he might not actually know this. You admit yourself that nobody else seems to know. Is it possible? Yes, it's possible that he's the first person ever to break this news, and he does it in an opinion column. But it's also possible that he's gathered a lot of what he knows third-, fourth-, and fifth-hand from the internet "telephone" game, where one person reports that the NBA has extended a line of credit to the Kings and before long the reports morph. Extended -> taken -> taken in full -> taken in full and never paid back. And yes, given Simmons' extremely careful research (/sarc) on the other loan issue I'm inclined to believe that he's basing his NBA loan claim on internet buzz (just as there has been plenty of internet buzz that we've had to shoot down here about, say, the Maloofs taking a loan from Sacramento to build ARCO) and not on inside info.
Both are possible. I don't particularly care which is right. But I lean towards internet buzz and not inside info - NBA contacts or not. You want to believe it? Go ahead, believe it with all your heart. But don't sit there and snipe at me about being inaccurate ("Not very factorial" - by the way, the word has nothing to do with "factual") when I'm simply taking an agnostic position.
I'm simply pointing out that he might not actually know this. You admit yourself that nobody else seems to know. Is it possible? Yes, it's possible that he's the first person ever to break this news, and he does it in an opinion column. But it's also possible that he's gathered a lot of what he knows third-, fourth-, and fifth-hand from the internet "telephone" game, where one person reports that the NBA has extended a line of credit to the Kings and before long the reports morph. Extended -> taken -> taken in full -> taken in full and never paid back. And yes, given Simmons' extremely careful research (/sarc) on the other loan issue I'm inclined to believe that he's basing his NBA loan claim on internet buzz (just as there has been plenty of internet buzz that we've had to shoot down here about, say, the Maloofs taking a loan from Sacramento to build ARCO) and not on inside info.
Both are possible. I don't particularly care which is right. But I lean towards internet buzz and not inside info - NBA contacts or not. You want to believe it? Go ahead, believe it with all your heart. But don't sit there and snipe at me about being inaccurate ("Not very factorial" - by the way, the word has nothing to do with "factual") when I'm simply taking an agnostic position.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/simmons/
At the 21:17 mark of his podcast, Simmons makes it clear that until recently he didn’t understand what was going in Sacramento, something changed his mind, he did a lot of digging, and he wanted to let the public know what he found.
Props to Löwenherz
At the 21:17 mark of his podcast, Simmons makes it clear that until recently he didn’t understand what was going in Sacramento, something changed his mind, he did a lot of digging, and he wanted to let the public know what he found.
Props to Löwenherz
He missed the same point as a lot of posters miss. The "loan" he mentions many years ago was not a loan of $77 mil from the city to build an arena. It was a $75 mil bond issue which will cost the Maloofs $77 mil if they move because there is a clause that adds a prepayment penalty to the bond. I am not knocking the article as it was great. It's a small mistake as the over all point he was trying to make was done very well.
This detail, the confusion of what a bond issue is as compared to a loan can bring the present efforts to a screaming halt if people don't understand the difference. A loan uses up money that can be spent elsewhere. A bond issue is issued for a specific reason and is funded by investors. This is money that a city can help provide without depriving itself of money.
In fact, a mega bond issue would keep the Kings which equates to about a 1000 ongoing jobs and the taxes the team pays and it would eventually provide a lot of jobs in the construction of the arena, the infrastructure, and anything else that was built to take advantage of this magnet. It could be a huge boon to the local economy. If Federal money is used in part, so much the better. Sacramento might as well take advantage of anything that pumps money into the city.
More jobs equals more taxes. More buildings means more taxes. More taxes means more money for police, fire, and schools, etc. Despite my questions on the area plan as being workable, this dang thing has got to be built and the advantages range far beyond simply keeping the Kings here.
I simply have to add that I suspect very much that the note Löwenherz wrote had an impact. This is why I keep nagging people to write. As small as you may think you are, you may make a difference. A huge number of "small" people adds up to something that might have a powerful impact. Our battle for an arena is not over and instead of breathing a sigh of relief that KJ will take care of everything, we need to keep active. The fight isn't over until next March with an arena plan in place.
Then we can go on and win an NBA championship.
This detail, the confusion of what a bond issue is as compared to a loan can bring the present efforts to a screaming halt if people don't understand the difference. A loan uses up money that can be spent elsewhere. A bond issue is issued for a specific reason and is funded by investors. This is money that a city can help provide without depriving itself of money.
In fact, a mega bond issue would keep the Kings which equates to about a 1000 ongoing jobs and the taxes the team pays and it would eventually provide a lot of jobs in the construction of the arena, the infrastructure, and anything else that was built to take advantage of this magnet. It could be a huge boon to the local economy. If Federal money is used in part, so much the better. Sacramento might as well take advantage of anything that pumps money into the city.
More jobs equals more taxes. More buildings means more taxes. More taxes means more money for police, fire, and schools, etc. Despite my questions on the area plan as being workable, this dang thing has got to be built and the advantages range far beyond simply keeping the Kings here.
I simply have to add that I suspect very much that the note Löwenherz wrote had an impact. This is why I keep nagging people to write. As small as you may think you are, you may make a difference. A huge number of "small" people adds up to something that might have a powerful impact. Our battle for an arena is not over and instead of breathing a sigh of relief that KJ will take care of everything, we need to keep active. The fight isn't over until next March with an arena plan in place.
Then we can go on and win an NBA championship.
Last edited:
That article was excellent.
Just want to pose this, perhaps it wasn't a mistake after all. He probably just used the most simple terms re: "loan vs. bond issuance" to keep the facts menial (if you will, or if that even makes sense). He may not have wanted to get into great detail on the monetary issue, when after all the greatest point is the Maloofs are broke and this Kings in Sacramento thing needs to be fixed.
Just want to pose this, perhaps it wasn't a mistake after all. He probably just used the most simple terms re: "loan vs. bond issuance" to keep the facts menial (if you will, or if that even makes sense). He may not have wanted to get into great detail on the monetary issue, when after all the greatest point is the Maloofs are broke and this Kings in Sacramento thing needs to be fixed.
Let's just do a little quick math:
$75M from the NBA; $77M from the City; $75M from Samueli...
Forbes says the franchise is worth about $293M...
$227M debt on an asset that's worth $293M?
And suppose the NBA does a worst-case $50M to relocate. I forget, is that added on to the $227M? Or does it matter?
Nah, doesn't matter. $227M in debt on an asset that's worth $293M is bad enough.
What's next? A Ditech 125% loan, because real-estate always goes up?
If the NBA offered the Maloofs $70M and took over the debts, the Maloofs could conceivably accept that offer. That's really something.
$75M from the NBA; $77M from the City; $75M from Samueli...
Forbes says the franchise is worth about $293M...
$227M debt on an asset that's worth $293M?
And suppose the NBA does a worst-case $50M to relocate. I forget, is that added on to the $227M? Or does it matter?
Nah, doesn't matter. $227M in debt on an asset that's worth $293M is bad enough.
What's next? A Ditech 125% loan, because real-estate always goes up?
If the NBA offered the Maloofs $70M and took over the debts, the Maloofs could conceivably accept that offer. That's really something.
Last edited: