slugking50
All-Star
I guess nobody told him about our whales.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8872654/opinion-sacramento-kings-fans-matter
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8872654/opinion-sacramento-kings-fans-matter
ESPN: Kings fans opinion does not matter
- Thread starter slugking50
- Start date
Error in this in that the 525 million number doesn't include the relocation fee as that fee won't be known until later. It also seems to miss the part where the Whales aren't mythical Whales but unannounced partners. This was asked about and confirmed by KJ that the people in talks understand the money part and the talks are serious.
The overall point I don't have an issue with. The fans should matter, and in America in general, the consumer doesn't matter. It's this weird, potentially disastrous relationship where money making is based on selling things to people who doesn't seem to matter no matter how they protest. The owners just went from claiming they were losing money to suddenly trying to bask in the glow of the inflated sale price of the Kings. The Hawks aren't in danger even though they have no fan support, no titles, and have multiple cap issues over the years.
But the printing of this article on ESPN's site is highly suspect considering how they've treated the whole situation. If you visited ESPN then you would probably think the team has already been sold and moved. They've been terribly too much of the mentality this article criticizes.
The overall point I don't have an issue with. The fans should matter, and in America in general, the consumer doesn't matter. It's this weird, potentially disastrous relationship where money making is based on selling things to people who doesn't seem to matter no matter how they protest. The owners just went from claiming they were losing money to suddenly trying to bask in the glow of the inflated sale price of the Kings. The Hawks aren't in danger even though they have no fan support, no titles, and have multiple cap issues over the years.
But the printing of this article on ESPN's site is highly suspect considering how they've treated the whole situation. If you visited ESPN then you would probably think the team has already been sold and moved. They've been terribly too much of the mentality this article criticizes.
kennadog
Dog On It!
ESPN is totally east coast biased, as confirmed by a Sacramento reporter that went to work for them a when the Kings were actually at their peak. She couldn't get anybody back there to pay much attention to the Weber/Divac team. About the only west coast team they paid any attention to was the Lakers. So ESPN is pretty ignorant about the Kings and certainly about Sacramento.
Trueblood
Bench
Not only that but the one place on the west coast that they are biased towards is Seattle. Bill Simmons is very pro Seattle and a lot of their anchors have roots in Seattle. ESPN more than anybody else is responsible about the misinformation about the OKC relocation. The whole "hijacking" term was started by Simmons and the rest of the media ran with it.
The funny thing is, it took an independent group from Seattle to make "Sonicsgate" and they came a lot closer to unearthing the truth about the OKC relocation than anyone at ESPN has. Had ESPN done "Sonicsgate", you would have about 90% of the piece being a comedic skit about rednecks in Oklahoma. This is why Bucher and so many ESPN and former ESPN writers are way off. There is a definite bias. Bucher may even be doing Joe Lacob's dirty work as Lacob may be eyeing the Sacramento market for the Warriors or something.
Watch NBA TV to get the truth on this. CWebb isn't really in the loop like we are but at least he and the anchors are on Sac's side or are neutral at worst.
Chupacabra
Starter
Wow. That article doesnt even mention anything about Burkle or Mastarov. Theyre acknowledging Hansen but not Ron Burkle!? What an embarrassment.
Brac-o-matic
G-League
That would have required actual research, since those names haven't been officially announced by KJ. It is much easier to half-listen to his first press conference, assume that all Sac can raise is $19 Million to counter $525 Million, and write an article on ESPN's website that shows you don't put any actual time or effort into your job.
Although I am looking forward to seeing how the national conversation changes when Burkle-Mastrov are announced...
HndsmCelt
Hall of Famer
I think some of you miss the point. Who and what is this piece about? Who and what is it NOT about? ESPN just gave a page of details about how great Kings fans are, and about how the city is fighting to keep the team/love the team. They wrote virtually NOTHING about Seattle and their fans. Ignore the errors and the erroneous conclusion, this is EXACTLY what Mayor Johnson and the local buyers want. The focus is definitely now on Sacramento NOT Seattle. Now they/we need to keep it there.
ESPN put up a crap article with little research or follow through? Get out. This is the company that brought you Chad Ford, among others. It's a shame that they're the face of what passes for sports news nowadays.
On a positive note, I feel like most of the real news can be found here, which is a true testament to the job that many have been doing, either by posting or linking to people with actual information. At least I can form a cogent argument with my people on this side of the Rockies on why the Kings (IMO) are likely to stay in Sacramento.
On a positive note, I feel like most of the real news can be found here, which is a true testament to the job that many have been doing, either by posting or linking to people with actual information. At least I can form a cogent argument with my people on this side of the Rockies on why the Kings (IMO) are likely to stay in Sacramento.
Padrino
All-Star
it's bad journalism, but that's also nothing new for ESPN. here is my stance on the matter: if the kings manage to stay in sacramento, it's a big middle finger to those who fail to comprehend how a small market like sacramento can keep coming from behind for the win, so to speak. if the kings leave, well, none of it matters anyway. the hurt will simply drown out the condescending wave of "i told you so's"...
edit: but i do feel like it should be noted that the very opening of the article represents the height of cynicism regarding professional sports: "They don't understand how their loyalty, always durable, often completely illogical given their team's laughable mismanagement, isn't powerful enough to keep their team from moving to Seattle." loyalty does not equate to blind following. most of us have been clamoring for proper ownership, management, and coaching for many years now. it is not illogical to want a franchise to improve from the top down. that is a fan, after all, who cares so much about his or her favorite team that he or she simply refuses to accept its mediocrity...
edit: but i do feel like it should be noted that the very opening of the article represents the height of cynicism regarding professional sports: "They don't understand how their loyalty, always durable, often completely illogical given their team's laughable mismanagement, isn't powerful enough to keep their team from moving to Seattle." loyalty does not equate to blind following. most of us have been clamoring for proper ownership, management, and coaching for many years now. it is not illogical to want a franchise to improve from the top down. that is a fan, after all, who cares so much about his or her favorite team that he or she simply refuses to accept its mediocrity...
Last edited:
Jose
Bench
The point of the article is still true, though: It doesn't matter what Kings fans think or want. It doesn't matter that we think the Kings were being mismanaged. It's not OUR business and we have no input on it, other than to spend our money on it or not. Our opinion is irrelevant and the decision on whether the Kings stay or go, whether the losing city gets an expansion team, etc., will be made based on one thing: MONEY
The NBA has been extremely successful since the Sonics moved. Moving the Kings will not change that. One fanbase will rise at the expense of another. As far as the NBA is concerned, it's a wash (or an advantage to move since, after all, it's a larger market).
NBA franchise values have risen 30% from last year (as per Forbes). Their product is more profitable than ever, their assets (franchise value) keep rising, and the league continues to be successful. Heck, Forbes now ranks the Kings as the 11th most valuable NBA franchise... in spite of the clowns running it to the ground. MONEY is all that matters.
Fan loyalty? Bah, Humbug.
Padrino
All-Star
of course the decision of whether the kings stay or go is based on money. but why are nba franchise values rising? fan loyalty. you can have a great TV deal. you can have expensive box seats for sponsors. but if the fans don't put their asses in the seats, if the fans don't buy the merchandise, if the fans don't care, franchise values drop. the kings hold the top two sellout streaks in the nba. if fan loyalty didn't matter, do you think david stern would have poured so much time, effort, and league resources into helping the city of sacramento draft a working arena deal last year? sacramento is a relatively small market. there are few big time corporate sponsors in the region. there's no gigantic TV deal waiting in the wings. it is and has been a viable nba city because the fans are loyal. they show up even when the kings are terrible. the decision on whether the kings stay or go will not be made by fans, but that loyalty has measurable impact, and i am, indeed, talking about $$$...
Fear the Putin
Starter
I shall not read it, as I already know that it will stain my brain
Jose
Bench
The points you make actually favor Seattle:
- "sacramento is a relatively small market": Seattle isn't
- "there are few big time corporate sponsors in the region": HUGE ones in Seattle
- "there's no gigantic TV deal waiting in the wings": There will be a better one in Seattle
- "it is and has been a viable nba city because the fans are loyal. they show up even when the kings are terrible" : So will Seattle fans
- "the decision on whether the kings stay or go will not be made by fans, but that loyalty has measurable impact": had no impact when they moved to OKC. OKC's fanbase rose and replaced Seattle's. The same will happen here. You lose great fans, but you gain great fans. It's all a wash.
And don't forget they have all the $$$ on the table already for their new arena. Sacramento has a "framework of a deal" and still needs to show the real money, get the bids for the parking, etc... In Seattle, it's all privately backed by Hansen, so the arena up there is a sure deal.
Money wise, Seattle represents more $$$ for the NBA. And more secure $$$. It is also a chance to raise franchise values further(average franchise value is now $509 Million). If a bottom feeder can sell for $525M, the value of other teams like Clippers and Thunder (who are listed BELOW the Kings by Forbes) will definitely rise. Finish this sale, and the next expansion team(s) will probably start at $500 Million. HUGE $$$ wins for the NBA.
Like I said before... I think this ends with "Sorry, Sac... but get your arena going and we'll get you an expansion team". UNLESS there's some sort of legal recourse (like the right of first refusal that's being talked about).
I started a long post disputing and arguing most of your points but I stopped halfway through and decided to just go with this:
I'm optimistic that we'll keep our team. It's just as easy as being pessimistic and a lot healthier, at least for me.
I'm optimistic that we'll keep our team. It's just as easy as being pessimistic and a lot healthier, at least for me.
Jose
Bench
Fair enough... I'm hopeful and (very) cautiously optimistic but, given how the Maloofs have screwed us over and over, preparing for the worst.
I can understand that.
But there are a lot of reasons for hope.
One is that the NBA blocked the sale of the T'Wolves when it would have meant moving them.
Another is that Kevin Johnson is a fighter and a good one.
But the biggest one for me is that the NBA worked hand in hand with Sacramento to get an arena deal, and KJ held up his side of it by getting public funding. That can't be overstated. I feel for Sonics fans who lost their team, but Seattle did NOT partner with the NBA on a new arena or a remodel of Key Arena. This would be a far worse situation than when the NBA allowed the Sonics to move, and would cause enormous financial harm to a city that did everything asked of it.
And what Keown doesn't get at all in his article is that the fundamental reason why Sacramento will fight so hard to keep the Kings is precisely because we (fans) DO love them.
kennadog
Dog On It!
I don't argue that this is about money. But the article failed to point out that Sacramento has potential a billionaire buyer(s) too. It really failed to point out the financial pluses on Sacramento's side. Made Sacramento sound like some incredibly poor relative who really shouldn't even be a member of the family, but pity them. Really pissed me off.
Last edited:
kennadog
Dog On It!
You are so eloquent and right on the factual money. Thank you.
Last edited:
macadocious
Starter
You know what doesn't matter?
This article.
This article.
Cwebb#4
G-League
Ha! Delusional? US? Let's look at what Hansen is trying to do:
1) Bring a team to Seattle that has had the worst loosing streak in history(so soorry kings, just have to make a point!)
2)Ignore the legal rights of minority owners who will-and very soon-have massive financial backing for a lawsuit
3)Relocate a team that has had more sellouts in it's history than all Seattle teams combined
4)Get on David Stern's nerves(That was the big one!)
1) Bring a team to Seattle that has had the worst loosing streak in history(so soorry kings, just have to make a point!)
2)Ignore the legal rights of minority owners who will-and very soon-have massive financial backing for a lawsuit
3)Relocate a team that has had more sellouts in it's history than all Seattle teams combined
4)Get on David Stern's nerves(That was the big one!)
