L
LWP777
Guest
My question is.....does the NBA give Sacramento an expansion team? Assuming an arena is built....
PurpleHaze
All-Star
There are no shovels in the ground anywhere near Sactown for new arena. Thus it's basically a moot point right now. Sac has chance to get an expansion team from any of the major sports like any other large metro area - if they have suitable place for them to play.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
It makes far more sense for the exapansion team to go in Seattle if you're going to expand anyway.
The NBA/Stern is realistic enough to know that the Sacto arena deal is delicate. It was there for the Kings, while the city had an ex-NBA player as mayor. Take the Kings out of the equation, and the mayor will be gone within 4 years, and you may never be able to get that approved again, and you lose the Sacto market.
And you also shut down the Royals/Kings franchise. Maybe forever.
If you're going to expand, it is far easier/makes more sense to accept a Sacto counteroffer for the Kings, get the arena built for them while its still possible, and sell Ballmer an expansion team. Then you get Burkle AND Ballmer, two arenas, save the market, save the franchise history.
HndsmCelt
Hall of Famer
By the same line of thinking, since the Seattle owners would obviously re-moniker the Kings as the Sonics and hoist all the old banners and jerseys, The opening in Sac would be for a reincarnated Kings without the stench of Maloof on it,a nd that theoretical expansion could be fast tracked or at least promised as a location of first choice. I do not know if the NBA currently recognizes any Eastern location as "NBA ready" but given the concentration of talent on a few Key teams a little shake up might benefit the League.
HereWeBoogie
Hall of Famer
No. there will be no arena built if there isnt a team playing here
Peter_Gibbons
Starter
Seattle should be the one getting an expansion team instead but Stern doesn't want to expand the league.
The fact that the Kings will end up losing its own history is what bothers me a lot more than if the team was sold to any other group/city. These guys in Seattle are going to tag on the history of the Sonics to the Kings and 5-10 years from now, not many people will know that the "Sonics" aren't really the Sonics that left to the Thunder. AND that those Sonics really has their history all the way from the Royals days.
What the hell is going to happen to the history of the Kings/Royals? I'm sure the Seattle group will put some fancy PR spin on it like "the Kings history will not be forgotten" (but we will use all our Sonics colors/history officially).
Thats what really grinds my gears on top of anything. If the team must be sold and leave Sac, at least sell it to any other city that can retain the Kings history in full.
The fact that the Kings will end up losing its own history is what bothers me a lot more than if the team was sold to any other group/city. These guys in Seattle are going to tag on the history of the Sonics to the Kings and 5-10 years from now, not many people will know that the "Sonics" aren't really the Sonics that left to the Thunder. AND that those Sonics really has their history all the way from the Royals days.
What the hell is going to happen to the history of the Kings/Royals? I'm sure the Seattle group will put some fancy PR spin on it like "the Kings history will not be forgotten" (but we will use all our Sonics colors/history officially).
Thats what really grinds my gears on top of anything. If the team must be sold and leave Sac, at least sell it to any other city that can retain the Kings history in full.
fansinceday1
Starter
Sacramento will not get another sports franchise. Not in our lifetimes.
The NBA has no business expanding. Heck, Ive heard some pretty convincing arguments for contraction. Same for MLB and the NHL. The NFL is the only league that is healthy enough to expand.
The NBA has no business expanding. Heck, Ive heard some pretty convincing arguments for contraction. Same for MLB and the NHL. The NFL is the only league that is healthy enough to expand.
kennadog
Dog On It!
No arena can built here without an anchor tenant. And Stern has said Sacramento would be unlikely to get another team. I'd like to know his reasoning for that, but he just may be tired of Sacramento. Except for a few years. Sacramento has always had financially poor owners. The difficulty of getting an arena built. We really need to keep the Kings, if there is anyway on earth to do so.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
That's the doubledown for me too. Not being local anymore, if the Maloofs were not involved I could almost retain at least an affection for the Kings franchise if it was still the Kings franchise, even in a different city. Wouldn't be the same, but it would still carry with it the history it had in my hometown. But now this, if it happens, this is true death not only for the Sacto franchise, but for the entire 70+ yr old Royals/Kings franchise. All because a couple of idiot playboys blew their wad and got petulant about admitting it and selling?
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
This is not expansion to untested markets though. When you get unhealthy is when you expand to places that can't really/don't really want to support you. But in this case you are talking Seattle and Sacto, two long established NBA markets, and Top 20 media markets. Say what you will about diluting the player pool (a bit -- 13 more jobs in a league with 400 already is just a bit), but keeping/maintaining teams in major media markets is actually how you stay healthy, not lose health.
Last edited:
uolj
Starter
I'd have to agree that it's unlikely. If it were going to happen in the near term, the ball would already be rolling for Seattle. If and when the league expands again, it will likely be to Europe or outside the U.S.
Sacramento being a top 20 market helps, but it's still considered a small market and doesn't have nearly the same corporate base as Seattle or other markets.
Sacramento being a top 20 market helps, but it's still considered a small market and doesn't have nearly the same corporate base as Seattle or other markets.
If the Kings leave, I don't think there will be a major professional sports team in town for decades to come, if ever. The catch 22 will be that a team won't consider Sacramento without an arena (or stadium) and the city won't consider building an arena (or stadium) without one. Which is a shame. It's heartbreaking enough to (potentially) lose the Kings. It's that much worse when I realize that Arco will soon be unable to host concerts and other events that I would take my family to. And worst yet when I stop and think about what a new downtown arena would have meant for myself, the team I love, and the city I grew up in. Economically, culturally, in terms of it's identity and aspirations, Sacramento will lose big if the team is uprooted to Seattle.
beb0p
Starter
Call me an optimist but I think if the team moves away, Sacramento is the front runner for an expansion team. Let's not let the fact that we are not Seattle blinds us to the fact that Sactown has a lot going for it. Reasons I think what I do:
1. Every well-run professional sports league expands. All of them, period. It's a question of when, not if, the NBA decides who gets an expansion team. It may be a few years or even a decade but the NBA will expand.
2. Proven market. The culture, the fans, they're all still going to be here.
3. Sac already has a plan in place for an arena. Yes, it hasn't bee built yet but we have a viable and executable plan that is set and ready to go. Many cities don't have that and struggled even to get the ball rolling (just look at Virginia Beach).
4. There is no big market to compete for a team. Outside of Tampa, Sac will be the only top 20 market without a team (and Tampa is not getting a team nor are they wanting one).
5. Sentiment. A lot of people who are not Kings fans will be rooting for us to get a team. And not just fans; players, coaches, journalists, and probably some team owners and NBA big wigs too. Just like they were rooting for Seattle.
6. When it's time for the NBA to expand, it will be very difficult to turn down Sacramento. What other cities are as far along as Sac in readiness, fan base, and being in a top market? Maybe KC or Louisvlle? The point is that we are right there. There are only a few cities left capable of supporting a team and some of them are not even viable for various reasons, the NBA simply cannot mention expansion without Sacramento being at or near the top of the list from a business and logistic standpoint.
7. Lastly, I simply refuse to believe that a city could come so far, work so hard, showed so much resolve, and has so much passion that it will not be rewarded in the end. I pains me to say this: but if the team moves away, it just means there's more work to be done. We need to organize petition drive, rally, etc to keep reminding NBA and the rest of country that Sacramento deserves a team. We need to keep the same kind of resolve and dedication that got us to almost keeping the Kings and use it to get a new team.
Now, with all that said, I'm still hoping for a last second shot to win this for Sacramento.
1. Every well-run professional sports league expands. All of them, period. It's a question of when, not if, the NBA decides who gets an expansion team. It may be a few years or even a decade but the NBA will expand.
2. Proven market. The culture, the fans, they're all still going to be here.
3. Sac already has a plan in place for an arena. Yes, it hasn't bee built yet but we have a viable and executable plan that is set and ready to go. Many cities don't have that and struggled even to get the ball rolling (just look at Virginia Beach).
4. There is no big market to compete for a team. Outside of Tampa, Sac will be the only top 20 market without a team (and Tampa is not getting a team nor are they wanting one).
5. Sentiment. A lot of people who are not Kings fans will be rooting for us to get a team. And not just fans; players, coaches, journalists, and probably some team owners and NBA big wigs too. Just like they were rooting for Seattle.
6. When it's time for the NBA to expand, it will be very difficult to turn down Sacramento. What other cities are as far along as Sac in readiness, fan base, and being in a top market? Maybe KC or Louisvlle? The point is that we are right there. There are only a few cities left capable of supporting a team and some of them are not even viable for various reasons, the NBA simply cannot mention expansion without Sacramento being at or near the top of the list from a business and logistic standpoint.
7. Lastly, I simply refuse to believe that a city could come so far, work so hard, showed so much resolve, and has so much passion that it will not be rewarded in the end. I pains me to say this: but if the team moves away, it just means there's more work to be done. We need to organize petition drive, rally, etc to keep reminding NBA and the rest of country that Sacramento deserves a team. We need to keep the same kind of resolve and dedication that got us to almost keeping the Kings and use it to get a new team.
Now, with all that said, I'm still hoping for a last second shot to win this for Sacramento.
Similar threads
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA - Sacramento Kings News
- Kings News Links
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA - Sacramento Kings News
- Kings News Links
- Sacramento Kings On SI
- Kings News Links
