KTLA: Fans React To Sacramento Kings Possible Move To Anaheim; Jim Nash Reports

[Vlade4GM]

Anyone who would put any stock in this report to accurately reflect not only the population of Anaheim, but the population of Orange County and the IE, they're great mistaken. They're (presumably) selecting random people in one single bar, and you know they pick and choose from all the people they interview to give off whatever impression they'd like to give off. Don't be such dupes, you guys.

 

[Gary]

Its going to take time for the Maloofs to build a fan base. Time and Winning. If I were the Maloofs I would totally re-brand the team and leave its history behind, and make it more "southern californian" as to appeal to new fans and southern californians turned off by the glitz of the lakers and the incompetence of the clippers. The whole royals gimmick is massively lame imho and they should leave that behind.

Im not surprised that the people in the bar were nonchalant about it, the maloofs just sprung this move on the world in february and the fans of so cal are well catered to by the Lakers basketball wise.

Personally I am conflicted by the move. On the one hand I like that the Lakers will get two more home games and the potential of a good so cal rivalry between the Clippers, Lakers and Royals. On the other hand the Kings get their meaning from the people of Sacramento and for them to ditch Sacramento to ME is a dirty betrayal and its wrong.

The bold part is why I think some SoCal people will like it. The Lakers WILL get two more home games even if they are played int he "Kings/Royals" arena. That's sad, but it's true. The Lakers WILL have two more home games if playing the Kings in SoCal.

 

[kennadog]

Anyone who would put any stock in this report to accurately reflect not only the population of Anaheim, but the population of Orange County and the IE, they're great mistaken. They're (presumably) selecting random people in one single bar, and you know they pick and choose from all the people they interview to give off whatever impression they'd like to give off. Don't be such dupes, you guys.

What I see in that report is pretty much what I've seen from other videos and from comments to the Orange County Register. Yes, some are xcited, but it is a pretty bland reaction I see reflected in more than one SoCal/OC media outlet.

 

[JB_kings]

I wasn't comparing the welcome Sac gave to the Kings with the OC. Its obvious that Sac has supported the Kings very well in the past. No doubt about that. What the Maloofs are looking at is now. IF they file, they must feel that OC will make them more money and better for the team in the long run.

The thing is, Sac has not been great for the Maloofs in the last few years. Its can be the economy and lack of interest due to the team not performing well. As businessmen, they cannot look at what happen many years ago. Gone are the days of sell outs even with a non playoff team. Thats what the Maloofs are looking at and they must feel the can do better in Anaheim if they file.

I'm offering a locals view that its not all like what they showed in this clip. There are many NBA fans in the OC and will go to games just because the team is in their backyard. I'm not a clippers fan but I go to about 10 games a year even when they don't play the Kings because I enjoy basketball. Thats the potential I'm talking about.


As an aside, the Sacramento guy over did it? I assume that he was just mad at the Kings possibly moving, but calling them "losers" on TV just makes socal folks that don't know any better laugh at Sac residents which is totally undeserved.

It was the team dropping off a cliff. Lets see if the team wins 20 odd games the next two years and how well they are supported there. Lets compare then...

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

What I see in that report is pretty much what I've seen from other videos and from comments to the Orange County Register. Yes, some are xcited, but it is a pretty bland reaction I see reflected in more than one SoCal/OC media outlet.

Heck, you don't even need to see the reports to glean that. All you need to do is look at how geographically close it is to Staples Center. I don't care what anyone says, OC is Laker territory. IF the Kings are good, they may be able to salvage enough fans to get by. But, if they're not good and The Lakers are good, they'll be a complete joke there. Their "home" games when The Lakers come to play will be pathetic. It will be like Warriors/Kings games at Oracle were 10 years ago, if not worse.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I wasn't comparing the welcome Sac gave to the Kings with the OC. Its obvious that Sac has supported the Kings very well in the past. No doubt about that. What the Maloofs are looking at is now. IF they file, they must feel that OC will make them more money and better for the team in the long run.

The thing is, Sac has not been great for the Maloofs in the last few years. Its can be the economy and lack of interest due to the team not performing well. As businessmen, they cannot look at what happen many years ago. Gone are the days of sell outs even with a non playoff team. Thats what the Maloofs are looking at and they must feel the can do better in Anaheim if they file.

I'm offering a locals view that its not all like what they showed in this clip. There are many NBA fans in the OC and will go to games just because the team is in their backyard. I'm not a clippers fan but I go to about 10 games a year even when they don't play the Kings because I enjoy basketball. Thats the potential I'm talking about.


As an aside, the Sacramento guy over did it? I assume that he was just mad at the Kings possibly moving, but calling them "losers" on TV just makes socal folks that don't know any better laugh at Sac residents which is totally undeserved.

Key phrase their, "the team not performing well". Their 20 win joke of a team would have faired no better anywhere else.

 

[ParniValjak]

Fact is if there were more enthusiastic people the news station would show them. What interest do they have in tanking this deal? Half full bar vs. full bar = smaller sample size = higher margin of error, sure but 1 out of 7 is lousy no matter what the margin of error is. Fact is poll after poll has shown lukewarm fan interest at best. Keep telling yourselves another city with a vacant arena and no pro teams in town wouldn't be 1000x more excited.

Oh please!

The footage was contrusted so that is shows a mixed reaction to create more debate around the issue. And what polls are you talking about?! The newspaper polls?! That similar newspaper polls in the bee showed that a great majority of sacbee readers don't care about the Kings.

If you walked into down town of Sacramento and asked 100 people what they thought of the Kings, majority wouldn't care. Don't get me wrong, our fans are some of the most passionate in the world but our great fans still represent the minority of Sacramento's population.

Whats the population of Sacramento?! About a couple of million?!?! Of the entire population, only about 15% would be Kings fans that go to actual games and that about 300K people which is still a minority population.

All it takes to be successful is 20-25K die hard fans!

News channels want to debate the hot topic, and in Anaheim thats currently the Kings. If they are not provocative with their reports, they won't get the debate nor will they get the ratings. Its all about debate at the moment.

OC would have about 5 million population. All it takes is for 5% of those people to follow the Kings and they would thrive. There is no doubt this is an uphill battle but to base your analysis on newspaper polls and obviously provoking news reports is a little bit far fetched.

The news grap was only live when Mr Nash was talking in front of the bar but in the bar, its some montaged footage of those for, those against and those who just don't care or are not basketball fans.

If you walked into a down town Sacramento and did the same thing, you could still montage the footage with exactly the same outcome.

 

[ParniValjak]

What I see in that report is pretty much what I've seen from other videos and from comments to the Orange County Register. Yes, some are xcited, but it is a pretty bland reaction I see reflected in more than one SoCal/OC media outlet.

And if you go by the comments in the sacbee and the comments by the mayor, you would be forgiven for thinking that Sacramento can't wait to see the back of the Kings. We both know that is not a true reflection.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

It was the team dropping off a cliff. Lets see if the team wins 20 odd games the next two years and how well they are supported there. Lets compare then...

Read, I already pointed out that it was partially due to the team performing poorly. No one is saying they will sell out every game in Anaheim if they don't win.

You have to win to fill seats. That goes for every team except the Knicks. Even the lakers had a big drop off in TV ratings and attendance when Shaq got traded and they didn't make the playoffs.

The point is the Kings no longer draws full houses in Sac even with a bad team like back in the days. That makes the once model fan base look the same as any other region. You have to win. So the Maloofs rather try to do that in a bigger market.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

No they absolutely don't. That will just become Staples South, and with all the Laker fans that show up at RIP ARCO, can you imagine the scanario down there? It will be a joke.

It just goes to show that not only do the Maloofs have no loyalty or business sense, they have no PRIDE either. You don't move into the heart of the enemy's territory just to be a leech and chase a better TV deal. You just don't do it! It's like The Spurs moving to Dallas, or The Magic moving to Miami, or the Pacers moving to Chicago, or the Bucks moving to Detroit, etc. etc. If you're desperate and stupid enough to even consider a move like that, you have no business owning an NBA team!

 

[Vlade4GM]

What I see in that report is pretty much what I've seen from other videos and from comments to the Orange County Register. Yes, some are xcited, but it is a pretty bland reaction I see reflected in more than one SoCal/OC media outlet.

Those are all very flawed samples.

 

[chief bromden]

It just goes to show that not only do the Maloofs have no loyalty or business sense, they have no PRIDE either. You don't move into the heart of the enemy's territory just to be a leech and chase a better TV deal. You just don't do it! It's like The Spurs moving to Dallas, or The Magic moving to Miami, or the Pacers moving to Chicago, or the Bucks moving to Detroit, etc. etc. If you're desperate and stupid enough to even consider a move like that, you have no business owning an NBA team!

They have no "business sense" when they "chase a better TV deal?"

ContradictoryOfTheDay....

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

They have no "business sense" when they "chase a better TV deal?"

ContradictoryOfTheDay....

Right, because CHASING a POTENTIOALLY better TV deal is ALL THERE IS TOO IT. LMAO!!! I need one of those I'm surrounded by idiots pens right now! Man people can be dense on the internet, lol.

 

[chief bromden]

Right, because a POTENTIOALLY better TV deal is ALL THERE IS TOO IT. LMAO!!! I need one of those I'm surrounded by idiots pens right now!
Man people can be dense on the internet, lol.

ContradictoryOfTheDay delivers again. Maybe you can buy a dictionary with the money you save by not buying tickets?

You might want to check out the Thunder and how their business is doing in a smaller market before you go around calling people idiots.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/basketball-valuations-11_Oklahoma-City-Thunder_329710.html

Since you probably won't go to that link, I will post "The Skinny" from the page:

The skinny
In their second season since moving from Seattle the Thunder made the playoffs, where they were eliminated in the first round by the Lakers. Although the Thunder do not operate their arena, the team still gets roughly $20 million more in premium seating revenue a season from the Oklahoma City Arena than they took in from Key Arena in Seattle. The Oklahoma City Arena is in the middle of a $92 million makeover funded by a one-cent sales tax that includes a new scoreboard, new restaurants and remodeled suites. It should be completed some time in 2011. A new $14 million practice facility funded by the same sales tax should also be completed this year. The original costs of the arena renovation and practice facility combined were planned at $121 million but cut back to $104 million because of less than expected tax revenue.


The recipe for making money in the sports business is winning. The Kings future looks good. If they fulfill their potential and start making the playoffs, how can they fail to increase revenues?

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

ContradictoryOfTheDay delivers again. Maybe you can buy a dictionary with the money you save by not buying tickets?

You might want to check out the Thunder and how their business is doing in a smaller market before you go around calling people idiots.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/basketball-valuations-11_Oklahoma-City-Thunder_329710.html

Since you probably won't go to that link, I will post "The Skinny" from the page:

The skinny
In their second season since moving from Seattle the Thunder made the playoffs, where they were eliminated in the first round by the Lakers. Although the Thunder do not operate their arena, the team still gets roughly $20 million more in premium seating revenue a season from the Oklahoma City Arena than they took in from Key Arena in Seattle. The Oklahoma City Arena is in the middle of a $92 million makeover funded by a one-cent sales tax that includes a new scoreboard, new restaurants and remodeled suites. It should be completed some time in 2011. A new $14 million practice facility funded by the same sales tax should also be completed this year. The original costs of the arena renovation and practice facility combined were planned at $121 million but cut back to $104 million because of less than expected tax revenue.


The recipe for making money in the sports business is winning. The Kings future looks good. If they fulfill their potential and start making the playoffs, how can they fail to increase revenues?

Wait, let me get this straight. You post about a SMALL market in response to moving to a BIG MARKET? That's supposed to disprove what I said and prove that I was being contradictory? Are you kidding me, son? Get some reading comprehension and some critical thinking skills. Until then, you aren't even worth debating with.

If they fulfill their potential and start making the playoffs, how can they fail to increase revenues?

That goes for any market, genius. Including Sacramento. LMAO, some of you people are just too much. You'll gainsay ANYTHING just for the sake of it, regardless of whether you have a retort of any substance or not. Typical adolescent nonsense.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Oh please!

The footage was contrusted so that is shows a mixed reaction to create more debate around the issue. And what polls are you talking about?! The newspaper polls?! That similar newspaper polls in the bee showed that a great majority of sacbee readers don't care about the Kings.

Yes, the editing of the clip did drive the casual viewer to think there was more of a debate than there was. By saying that 2 or 3 people who have ZERO interest in the KINGS "support" the move. Perhaps if they wanted to make the debate more livelier they could have actually found 2 or 3 more people that actually would look forward to the move as something to actually cheer the team, not see 2 more Laker home games or "be good for the area, but I won't be a fan, no".

 

[chief bromden]

Wait, let me get this straight. You post about a SMALL market in response to moving to a BIG MARKET? That's supposed to disprove what I said and prove that I was being contradictory? Are you kidding me, son? Get some reading comprehension and some critical thinking skills. Until then, you aren't even worth debating with. That goes for any market, genius. Including Sacramento. LMAO, some of you people are just too much. You'll gainsay ANYTHING just for the sake of it, regardless of whether you have a retort of any substance or not. Typical adolescent nonsense.

You called me an idiot and you can't even spell "potentially." Should I have used ironic to describe what you purport?

Aren't your arguments centered around the fact that, if the Kings move, that they will have to split the market with two other teams?
If I remember correctly, that is your stance on why a more lucrative TV deal is only a potential.

So if their revenues will increase in Anaheim or Sacramento if they start winning, and they have built a team with a lot of potential to win in years to come... how do they have bad business sense?
That is your claim.

Whether they move or not, it looks like things are on the up for their business.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

You called me an idiot and you can't even spell "potentially." Should I have used ironic to describe what you purport?

You just resorted to spelling policing to make a point. That’s a sure sign that someone is losing the debate and has nothing of value to add.

Aren't your arguments centered around the fact that, if the Kings move, that they will have to split the market with two other teams?
If I remember correctly, that is your stance on why a more lucrative TV deal is only a potential.

That’s ONE of my arguments. The issue is much more complex than that, though.

So if their revenues will increase in Anaheim or Sacramento if they start winning, and they have built a team with a lot of potential to win in years to come... how do they have bad business sense?
That is your claim.

Because it’s better to be a good team in a “small” market you have all to yourself than to share the pie with six or seven other pro teams. This seems self evident.

 

[chief bromden]

You just resorted to spelling policing to make a point. That’s a sure sign that someone is losing the debate and has nothing of value to add.


That’s ONE of my arguments. The issue is much more complex than that, though.



Because it’s better to be a good team in a “small” market you have all to yourself than to share the pie with six or seven other pro teams. This seems self evident.

I didn't police at all. You resorted to attacking character by calling me an idiot. I am wondering why you are contradicting yourself. There isn't a debate; it is an inquiry.

Also, I am not your son or an adolescent teenager. I have comprehension skills and critical thinking abilities. I assume that you do as well.


How complex is it? Can you dispute what Sam Amick proposes about the Kings potential TV deal if they move to Anaheim? He claims that triple the revenue is a realistic estimate. Quadruple the amount is in the picture.

Why is it self-evident? OKC has a much smaller pie now than they did in Seattle.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I didn't police at all. You resorted to attacking character by calling me an idiot. I am wondering why you are contradicting yourself. There isn't a debate; it is an inquiry.

Also, I am not your son or an adolescent teenager. I have comprehension skills and critical thinking abilities. I assume that you do as well.


How complex is it? Can you dispute what Sam Amick proposes about the Kings potential TV deal if they move to Anaheim? He claims that triple the revenue is a realistic estimate. Quadruple the amount is in the picture.

Why is it self-evident? OKC has a much smaller pie now than they did in Seattle.

OK, I'm not following you here. The fact that OKC is doing so well in a small market only reinforces my point about why The Kings are better off in Sacramento. What exactly are you arguing against here? Maybe I'm just being dense, but I don't see what point you're trying to make.

 

[Trueblood]

And if you go by the comments in the sacbee and the comments by the mayor, you would be forgiven for thinking that Sacramento can't wait to see the back of the Kings. We both know that is not a true reflection.

Unfortunately, I agree. You are spot on. And let's not forget who they were interviewing. A couple middle aged white republicans with even a Sacramento resident mixed in.

And I wouldn't even single out Sacramento and Anaheim either. You could walk into any sports bar in the country and interview that same demographic and would get basically the same answers.

Same with the online newspaper comments. The Bee is no worse than the OC Register or any other paper in the country where the cowards hide behind their computer screens.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Lakers or Clippers are behind these type of "news" reports. And this coming from someone who hates the idea of the Kings moving to OC. I just don't think slamming the OC is going to help. We need to focus on last minute solutions.

 

[chief bromden]

OK, I'm not following you here. The fact that OKC is doing so well in a small market only reinforces my point about why The Kings are better off in Sacramento. What exactly are you arguing against here? Maybe I'm just being dense, but I don't see what point you're trying to make.

You claim the Maloofs have bad business sense because the TV deal is only a potential. Sam Amick claims that a TV deal in Anaheim is likely to be triple the amount of revenue as one here in Sacramento. Quadruple is not out of the question. They have a team that has the potential to win in the future. Winning is great for revenue. Their options are staying in Sacramento or moving to Anaheim. It appears that their revenues will increase whether they stay or leave. How do they have bad business sense?

I bring up OKC because the Sonics moved to a smaller market and have improved revenues. OKC might resemble Sacramento more than Anaheim; I have no clue. If the Anaheim market is indeed smaller than Sacramento's market, then OKC provides the example: moving to a smaller market doesn't not automatically result in reduced revenues.

I can understand the emotions directed at the Maloofs, but I am not convinced that the option they have created for themselves is lacking business sense.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

You claim the Maloofs have bad business sense because the TV deal is only a potential. Sam Amick claims that a TV deal in Anaheim is likely to be triple the amount of revenue as one here in Sacramento. Quadruple is not out of the question. They have a team that has the potential to win in the future. Winning is great for revenue. Their options are staying in Sacramento or moving to Anaheim. It appears that their revenues will increase whether they stay or leave. How do they have bad business sense?

I bring up OKC because the Sonics moved to a smaller market and have improved revenues. OKC might resemble Sacramento more than Anaheim; I have no clue. If the Anaheim market is indeed smaller than Sacramento's market, then OKC provides the example: moving to a smaller market doesn't not automatically result in reduced revenues.

I can understand the emotions directed at the Maloofs, but I am not convinced that the option they have created for themselves is lacking business sense.

They have bad business sense because they're walking out on a proven market to take a gamble on an unproven one. It has nothing to do with emotions on my part. It has to do with what the facts are. Just look at what's happened with their casino, beer distributorship, and NBA team. It's no secret that these guys aren't exactly financial geniuses. Everything they touch seems to crumble. Ammick is just speculating and any winning that will produce in Anaheim will also produce in Sacramento.

 

[ParniValjak]

Yes, the editing of the clip did drive the casual viewer to think there was more of a debate than there was. By saying that 2 or 3 people who have ZERO interest in the KINGS "support" the move. Perhaps if they wanted to make the debate more livelier they could have actually found 2 or 3 more people that actually would look forward to the move as something to actually cheer the team, not see 2 more Laker home games or "be good for the area, but I won't be a fan, no".

They came up with a mixture of each!

One who says its an extra Lakers game, one that says he is a fan of basketball but not pro basketball and wouldn't go, then another who just is not a fan of basketball but recognised it would be good for the area, a Sacramento resident who said they wouldn't go (well there is a surprise ) and a lady that said she would go.

So based on that you are saying this is failure?! 1 out of 5 would go which is 20% which is still aroughly the percentage of population of Sacramento that go to games. Are you telling me that the entire population of Sacramento goes to Kings games?!?!?!

I could easily go into the same bar and doctor a footage that all of my 5 people that I interviewed for this segmant would say that they are going to go to the games!

I think people are SERIOUSLY reading too much into obviously editted segment on a TV station and comments in the OC Register. Like I said, if we didn't know better and went off on what is written in the Bee comments section and said by the Mayor, we could be forgiven for thinking that Sacramento can't wait for the Kings to leave.

 

[hrdboild]

You claim the Maloofs have bad business sense because the TV deal is only a potential. Sam Amick claims that a TV deal in Anaheim is likely to be triple the amount of revenue as one here in Sacramento. Quadruple is not out of the question. They have a team that has the potential to win in the future. Winning is great for revenue. Their options are staying in Sacramento or moving to Anaheim. It appears that their revenues will increase whether they stay or leave. How do they have bad business sense?

I bring up OKC because the Sonics moved to a smaller market and have improved revenues. OKC might resemble Sacramento more than Anaheim; I have no clue. If the Anaheim market is indeed smaller than Sacramento's market, then OKC provides the example: moving to a smaller market doesn't not automatically result in reduced revenues.

I can understand the emotions directed at the Maloofs, but I am not convinced that the option they have created for themselves is lacking business sense.

Sam Amick has sounded like the lead cheerleader for the Kings moving to Anaheim for months now. I've stopped taking anything he has to say on the issue seriously. He's over-emphasized the suitability of the Honda center as an NBA arena (it's at best adequate) and under-emphasized the discrepancy between the terms of this lease agreement and the terms for a new arena in Sacramento which the Maloofs rejected 5 years ago. For anyone who's been following this arena issue long enough, that discrepancy is hard to ignore. Will the Kings/Royals make money in Anaheim? Probably. Does that mean they couldn't make money in Sacramento? Not at all. Especially if they cooperated with the effort to build a brand new modern arena.

Owners who want to stay in a particular city do not ramp up negotiations to leave while a new arena proposal lead by the current mayor and two very highly respected developers is still underway. And they don't voluntarily give up an enormous chunk of their revenue stream to do it either. They've now put themselves in a position where they need the TV deal to be huge just to break even. And if it's not as big as they (and apparently Mr. Amick) expect -- they're going to lose the team. No maybe about it.

 

[kennadog]

All I'll say, again, is let's see how long it takes Anaheim to get two of the top five longest sell-out streaks in NBA history, if ever. And Sacramento did one in the time before the Kings got good.

 

[chief bromden]

Sam Amick has sounded like the lead cheerleader for the Kings moving to Anaheim for months now. I've stopped taking anything he has to say on the issue seriously. He's over-emphasized the suitability of the Honda center as an NBA arena (it's at best adequate) and under-emphasized the discrepancy between the terms of this lease agreement and the terms for a new arena in Sacramento which the Maloofs rejected 5 years ago. For anyone who's been following this arena issue long enough, that discrepancy is hard to ignore. Will the Kings/Royals make money in Anaheim? Probably. Does that mean they couldn't make money in Sacramento? Not at all. Especially if they cooperated with the effort to build a brand new modern arena.

Owners who want to stay in a particular city do not ramp up negotiations to leave while a new arena proposal lead by the current mayor and two very highly respected developers is still underway. And they don't voluntarily give up an enormous chunk of their revenue stream to do it either. They've now put themselves in a position where they need the TV deal to be huge just to break even. And if it's not as big as they (and apparently Mr. Amick) expect -- they're going to lose the team. No maybe about it.

Fair enough, thanks for the write up. I had the impression that Amick had an affinity for the Kings; apparently a misguided impression.

 

[Section 101]

I didn't police at all. You resorted to attacking character by calling me an idiot. I am wondering why you are contradicting yourself. There isn't a debate; it is an inquiry.

Also, I am not your son or an adolescent teenager. I have comprehension skills and critical thinking abilities. I assume that you do as well.


How complex is it? Can you dispute what Sam Amick proposes about the Kings potential TV deal if they move to Anaheim? He claims that triple the revenue is a realistic estimate. Quadruple the amount is in the picture.

Why is it self-evident? OKC has a much smaller pie now than they did in Seattle.

Give me the number you think the Kings are getting now or the number you think they will get in a new tv deal.

 

[BMiller52]

Give me the number you think the Kings are getting now or the number you think they will get in a new tv deal.

I'd be surprised if they get anything near what Amick or the Maloofs think they'll get. I honestly don't understand what would make fox give them some 40 or 50 million dollar miracle deal. I don't see the leverage. At this point the Maloofs are all in and they aren't coming back here most likely, and they're not exactly going to play on another network. Fox has all the leverage here IMO. They will probably offer something fair but they aren't going to give them the same deal they gave the Lakers. Why would fox pay the team 50 million dollars to compete with the Lakers and Clippers and they don't even have an established fan base? Fox would definitely lose on that deal. They won't get very good ratings because 90% of the fans down there are Laker fans, and the other 10% are probably clippers fans, and the team isn't very good right now. Fox would lose a lot of money on that deal and it'd be stupid for them.

 

[JB_kings]

I'm probably leaning towards the one dominant team in the market gets most of the money line of thinking. Tough to say because Sterling is such a wussbag when it comes to working deals for his team. Maybe the Kings may have a chance to drive a good TV deal if they become a much better team. But not just yet. In fact the first deal is what? Fox doesn't lose the Laker until the 2012-13 season. So what happens until then? And I love my Kings, but I would rather sign the Clippers to the bigger deal as long as they have #32 on their team. Blake is more of a draw all by himself.

You really need to sell me on why Fox or any other network is going to dump a truckload of money at them just because they are in the NBA. That whole market is Laker owned. There is no gap to fill. It's going to tough to carve out their fanbase.