Kings on the move?Ian Thomsen, SI.com
In this column: • Five top cities if Kings move
This may have been a slow season for free agents -- apart from Ben Wallace's escape to Chicago -- but it promises to be an intriguing year for entire rosters to change cities.
It's understood that the Sonics will be on their way to Oklahoma City, home base of their new owner Clay Bennett, if they can't strike a quick deal for a new arena in Seattle. The Hornets have also made it clear they have doubts about their anticipated return to New Orleans. Don't you think owner George Shinn would like to move the Hornets into Seattle if that market opens up?
But the wild card in this extravagant game of poker is going to be the Sacramento Kings, owned since 1999 by Joe and Gavin Maloof, who have spent seven years trying to secure a publicly financed building to replace Arco Arena.
The Maloofs insist that they can't remain at Arco because it puts them at a competitive disadvantage to the rival teams who are earning more money from larger, newer arenas. The Maloofs tell me that they expect to lose a Nov. 7 public vote that would raise $600 million toward a new arena by hiking taxes in Sacramento County by a quarter cent. The negotiations between the Maloofs and local government are so strained that the two sides haven't agreed on a plan to build the arena even if the vote passes.
Other than to reiterate their hope that a deal can be struck to keep the team in Sacramento -- "We've made a long-term investment there and we want to stay," insists Joe Maloof -- the Maloofs wouldn't comment for this story. But in the overdeveloped landscape of pro sports franchises, it isn't hard to pick out the scant opportunities that are available to them. In fact, one site looks especially attractive -- and it isn't in Las Vegas.
Here's a look at the top candidates to recruit the Kings over the next year:
1. Anaheim
The one negative is that the Lakers and Clippers already dominate Los Angeles. Any more here would have to be approved following an investigation by the Board of Governors, who would study whether a third franchise would damage the existing teams.
But if the Maloofs were to make this move, they could rename themselves the Anaheim Kings in order to distance themselves from their L.A. rivals and define their own market among fans who aren't interested in the long freeway drive to the Staples Center.
The L.A. Angels, based in Anaheim, finished fifth in baseball attendance this year with 3.4 million fans while sharing the market with the Dodgers, who were second overall with 3.8 million. Local TV rights would far exceed the $9 million that the Kings are earning from the tiny Sacramento market this season. An NBA-ready building -- the Pond -- awaits, and Anaheim would serve as a natural sister site to the Maloof family interests in Las Vegas and Hollywood.
After spending several days with the Maloofs recently, I believe they want to stay in Sacramento because they don't want to walk away from the investment they've made in creating that market. But people around the league have also convinced me that if the Kings can't make a deal for a new arena in Sacramento, then Anaheim will be the frontrunner. Unless, of course, they get an offer they can't refuse from ...
2. Las Vegas
Because they already own the Palms Resort Casino, the Maloofs would be the perfect owners for a team in Las Vegas so long as its new arena is built in a neutral downtown site that provides equal access to their casino rivals (which is indeed the most likely proposal currently under consideration). The other sticking point is NBA commissioner David Stern's aversion to placing a team in the nation's sports-betting capital, but read on -- the mayor of Las Vegas has a plan to win Stern over.
There are a lot of ifs and maybes here, but much more will be known about the viability of Las Vegas after it hosts the All-Star Game -- and more important the NBA owners -- in February.
3. San Jose
This would keep the Kings close to their current home in a market with an NBA-ready building that is actively seeking a tenant; the big issue is its proximity to the Golden State Warriors in Oakland. A better alternative might be to move into downtown San Francisco, but the idea of a publicly financed arena going up in that city is a pipe dream.
4. Kansas City
In some ways, the most ambitious of all the markets could be Kansas City, where Phil Anschutz has built a gorgeous new arena -- and he is obviously well-connected within the NBA. But it's hard to see the bachelor Maloofs making a move away from the West Coast. Kansas City is too far from their base of operations, and would their playboy lifestyle be welcome in the Midwest?
5. Seattle
If the Sonics announce a move to Oklahoma City after this season, Seattle will immediately become a highly attractive market -- provided that an arena deal can be negotiated with local government. But here is the question that is being asked within the NBA: If Seattle refuses to build an arena for former Sonics owner Howard Schultz or for his successor Bennett, then what makes anyone think the city would shift policy for yet another owner down the line? While that mess is sorting itself out over the next year or more, the Kings will be sorting through in-hand proposals from other cities.
One other bit of conjecture to consider: It is thought the NBA might be viewing Las Vegas as a site for a new team in hope of earning an expansion fee in excess of the $300 million paid by the Charlotte Bobcats in 2004. The owners would have to weigh that windfall against the dilution of talent and shared TV revenues that accompany each expansion.
While that scenario may influence the outcome of Las Vegas' bid for a team, it's harder to imagine the same dynamic taking place in Seattle. There has been some second-guessing among NBA owners that a bad precedent was set in Charlotte: If you don't like your owner, kick him out of town and then build an arena to entice a new expansion owner in his place. The NBA may be hesitant to recreate that scenario in Seattle.
There's more to the article but this was the important part.
It would be very sad to see them leave Sacramento. But I also don't blame the Maloofs for moving them either. This team deserves a 1st class Arena.
pilot305
In this column: • Five top cities if Kings move
This may have been a slow season for free agents -- apart from Ben Wallace's escape to Chicago -- but it promises to be an intriguing year for entire rosters to change cities.
It's understood that the Sonics will be on their way to Oklahoma City, home base of their new owner Clay Bennett, if they can't strike a quick deal for a new arena in Seattle. The Hornets have also made it clear they have doubts about their anticipated return to New Orleans. Don't you think owner George Shinn would like to move the Hornets into Seattle if that market opens up?
But the wild card in this extravagant game of poker is going to be the Sacramento Kings, owned since 1999 by Joe and Gavin Maloof, who have spent seven years trying to secure a publicly financed building to replace Arco Arena.
The Maloofs insist that they can't remain at Arco because it puts them at a competitive disadvantage to the rival teams who are earning more money from larger, newer arenas. The Maloofs tell me that they expect to lose a Nov. 7 public vote that would raise $600 million toward a new arena by hiking taxes in Sacramento County by a quarter cent. The negotiations between the Maloofs and local government are so strained that the two sides haven't agreed on a plan to build the arena even if the vote passes.
Other than to reiterate their hope that a deal can be struck to keep the team in Sacramento -- "We've made a long-term investment there and we want to stay," insists Joe Maloof -- the Maloofs wouldn't comment for this story. But in the overdeveloped landscape of pro sports franchises, it isn't hard to pick out the scant opportunities that are available to them. In fact, one site looks especially attractive -- and it isn't in Las Vegas.
Here's a look at the top candidates to recruit the Kings over the next year:
1. Anaheim
The one negative is that the Lakers and Clippers already dominate Los Angeles. Any more here would have to be approved following an investigation by the Board of Governors, who would study whether a third franchise would damage the existing teams.
But if the Maloofs were to make this move, they could rename themselves the Anaheim Kings in order to distance themselves from their L.A. rivals and define their own market among fans who aren't interested in the long freeway drive to the Staples Center.
The L.A. Angels, based in Anaheim, finished fifth in baseball attendance this year with 3.4 million fans while sharing the market with the Dodgers, who were second overall with 3.8 million. Local TV rights would far exceed the $9 million that the Kings are earning from the tiny Sacramento market this season. An NBA-ready building -- the Pond -- awaits, and Anaheim would serve as a natural sister site to the Maloof family interests in Las Vegas and Hollywood.
After spending several days with the Maloofs recently, I believe they want to stay in Sacramento because they don't want to walk away from the investment they've made in creating that market. But people around the league have also convinced me that if the Kings can't make a deal for a new arena in Sacramento, then Anaheim will be the frontrunner. Unless, of course, they get an offer they can't refuse from ...
2. Las Vegas
Because they already own the Palms Resort Casino, the Maloofs would be the perfect owners for a team in Las Vegas so long as its new arena is built in a neutral downtown site that provides equal access to their casino rivals (which is indeed the most likely proposal currently under consideration). The other sticking point is NBA commissioner David Stern's aversion to placing a team in the nation's sports-betting capital, but read on -- the mayor of Las Vegas has a plan to win Stern over.
There are a lot of ifs and maybes here, but much more will be known about the viability of Las Vegas after it hosts the All-Star Game -- and more important the NBA owners -- in February.
3. San Jose
This would keep the Kings close to their current home in a market with an NBA-ready building that is actively seeking a tenant; the big issue is its proximity to the Golden State Warriors in Oakland. A better alternative might be to move into downtown San Francisco, but the idea of a publicly financed arena going up in that city is a pipe dream.
4. Kansas City
In some ways, the most ambitious of all the markets could be Kansas City, where Phil Anschutz has built a gorgeous new arena -- and he is obviously well-connected within the NBA. But it's hard to see the bachelor Maloofs making a move away from the West Coast. Kansas City is too far from their base of operations, and would their playboy lifestyle be welcome in the Midwest?
5. Seattle
If the Sonics announce a move to Oklahoma City after this season, Seattle will immediately become a highly attractive market -- provided that an arena deal can be negotiated with local government. But here is the question that is being asked within the NBA: If Seattle refuses to build an arena for former Sonics owner Howard Schultz or for his successor Bennett, then what makes anyone think the city would shift policy for yet another owner down the line? While that mess is sorting itself out over the next year or more, the Kings will be sorting through in-hand proposals from other cities.
One other bit of conjecture to consider: It is thought the NBA might be viewing Las Vegas as a site for a new team in hope of earning an expansion fee in excess of the $300 million paid by the Charlotte Bobcats in 2004. The owners would have to weigh that windfall against the dilution of talent and shared TV revenues that accompany each expansion.
While that scenario may influence the outcome of Las Vegas' bid for a team, it's harder to imagine the same dynamic taking place in Seattle. There has been some second-guessing among NBA owners that a bad precedent was set in Charlotte: If you don't like your owner, kick him out of town and then build an arena to entice a new expansion owner in his place. The NBA may be hesitant to recreate that scenario in Seattle.
There's more to the article but this was the important part.
It would be very sad to see them leave Sacramento. But I also don't blame the Maloofs for moving them either. This team deserves a 1st class Arena.
pilot305
