Maloof's contributed to the problems in Sacramneto? No loyalty?

S

Siranthony

Starter
First some history. Geoff Petrie took over the team in 1994. The Maloofs became minority owners on Jan 14, 1998. They became controling owners on July 1st, 1999. Chris Webber, Jason Williams, Vlade Divac, Corless Williamson, Predrag Stojakovic, Jon Barry, Scott Pollard and Rick Adelman were all signed before the Maloffs became primary owners. How much they had to do with the building of this nucleus I don't know. It looks like it had a lot more to do with Petrie. That being said Doug Christie, Mike Bibby and Bobby Jackson where added later.

The pattern I notice is this. When Chris Webber got hurt he was gone. When Doug Christie had foot problems he was gone. When Peja had back problems he was gone. Mike Bibby was traded. I can't remeber why. Ron Artest was a big risk and he was out of here fairly quickly. Other than that we got nothing except salary relief for those players. When Rick Adelman started losing due to lack of tallent he was gone.

As far as I can see the Maloofs have no loyalty. they have shed more star players than they ever brought. Now that the economy is bad and Sacramento is hurting, the Maloofs are gone. Where is the loyalty. What about the 17 sold out season this town gave to the Kings?

Please straighten me out if I'm wrong. Where the Maloofs lucky oportunists or did they really care about this town and the product they brought here. There seem to be people who have a bad impression of them.
 
1. They actually should have fully unloaded most of that team much earlier and delaying the unloading lead to missing out on high picks in strong drafts. One guy they should have kept for legacy and team identity is Vlade, but he was one of the first to go.
2. The turn of the franchise did happen before the Maloofs and people tend to forget that. It was a one summer transition, followed by a period of time where teams where Petrie was working well on all fronts and teams were less cautious in trading with the Kings. (Understandable, it would be like making a trade with the Wolves right now, you just assume you won because its the Wolves you just traded with.)
3. Some people in current society have an unreasonable support of big corporate identities and I would include sports ownership in that. These people will blame a city hit harder than most any city by the financial downfall and a city that supported a team withs sellouts when their collective win percentage is less than .500. It's weird but it's not localized to this situation.
 
swisshh said:
1. They actually should have fully unloaded most of that team much earlier and delaying the unloading lead to missing out on high picks in strong drafts. One guy they should have kept for legacy and team identity is Vlade, but he was one of the first to go. (
Click to expand...

That is a matter of opinion. I can see why you would say that. But those players brought this town something we hadn't had before. An identity across the country. Some self esteem for Sacramento and a great time watching that team. Then you quickly dismantle everything for what? What we have had the last 4 years? This town had a connection with that team and everyone was shown the door. there is still Mike bibby cut outs at the local Waffle Barn. He is on his second team since leaving here. Sad.
 
Siranthony said:
First some history. Geoff Petrie took over the team in 1994. The Maloofs became minority owners on Jan 14, 1998. They became controling owners on July 1st, 1999. Chris Webber, Jason Williams, Vlade Divac, Corless Williamson, Predrag Stojakovic, Jon Barry, Scott Pollard and Rick Adelman were all signed before the Maloffs became primary owners. How much they had to do with the building of this nucleus I don't know. It looks like it had a lot more to do with Petrie. That being said Doug Christie, Mike Bibby and Bobby Jackson where added later.

The pattern I notice is this. When Chris Webber got hurt he was gone. When Doug Christie had foot problems he was gone. When Peja had back problems he was gone. Mike Bibby was traded. I can't remeber why. Ron Artest was a big risk and he was out of here fairly quickly. Other than that we got nothing except salary relief for those players. When Rick Adelman started losing due to lack of tallent he was gone.

As far as I can see the Maloofs have no loyalty. they have shed more star players than they ever brought. Now that the economy is bad and Sacramento is hurting, the Maloofs are gone. Where is the loyalty. What about the 17 sold out season this town gave to the Kings?

Please straighten me out if I'm wrong. Where the Maloofs lucky oportunists or did they really care about this town and the product they brought here. There seem to be people who have a bad impression of them.
Click to expand...

Now forgive me for saying this, but in my opinion this is just brainless gibberish. You don't hold on to ageing players if they are injured and aren't doing the team any good, no matter what it may cost your identity. You don't remember why we traded Bibby? I'll tell you why. It's because we were well out of the playoffs, wanted to rebuild, and Bibby was taking up 13 million of our capspace.

Look around the league for goodness sake. Trading vets for cap space/youth + picks isn't something that only happened in Sacramento.

Look at Webber once he went to Philly and later detroit. Do you think it would have been worth it keeping him around? How about Christie's stint in Orlando? Not exactly a very long-lasting one either.

Loyalty is one thing. Being stupid and not making smart basketball decisions is another.
 
Siranthony said:
That is a matter of opinion. I can see why you would say that. But those players brought this town something we hadn't had before. An identity across the country. Some self esteem for Sacramento and a great time watching that team. Then you quickly dismantle everything for what? What we have had the last 4 years? This town had a connection with that team and everyone was shown the door. there is still Mike bibby cut outs at the local Waffle Barn. He is on his second team since leaving here. Sad.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't quickly dismantled. It was slowly dismantled, over time, normally at the wrong times when value of the players had dropped drastically low. They kept on to certain players just for their ties to the past. They bought high and sold low on nearly every major piece. If you dismantle that team in one or two years, you at least get some good returns on guys like Peja and Bibby.
 
swisshh said:
But it wasn't quickly dismantled. It was slowly dismantled, over time, normally at the wrong times when value of the players had dropped drastically low. They kept on to certain players just for their ties to the past. They bought high and sold low on nearly every major piece. If you dismantle that team in one or two years, you at least get some good returns on guys like Peja and Bibby.
Click to expand...

This. Switching sports for a second, Bill Walsh (the greatest football coach of all time for those of you keeping track) was notorious for dropping franchise players at their "peaks". Those players would maybe have one or two years of success at the most before falling off of a cliff in terms of production and effectiveness. But by getting rid of them while they were still commodities, he was able to get assets for them and open up playing time for younger players once behind those guys on the depth chart. By continuing this cycle for years upon years, the Niners were able to be one of the best teams in the NFL for twenty years or until the Yorks fudged it up and hired terrible coaches and made questionable personnel decisions.

The Maloofs, however, waited too long to unload in some cases or got rid of the wrong players at the wrong time in some cases while simultaneously hiring bad coach after bad coach until Geoff Petrie woke up from his half-decade long nap and started putting together a team with a ton of potential. This may have come two or three years too late, unfortunately.
 
A couple factoids to chew on: Just before the Maloofs were even officially minted majority owners, they threw themselves into the role (and a controversy with the then-current majority owner) by flying to Arkansas and personally asking Corliss to resign with the Kings - indicative of the unusual, almost child-like passion they've always shown as owners.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/...UGGLE-IN-SACRAMENTO-KINGS-OWNERS-FEUDING.aspx

The roster mentioned in the OP may have been assembled just as the Maloofs were taking control, but they didn't become legit title contenders until the Maloofs doubled down and showed their loyalty with their wallets: C-Webb's max contract (and the famous lawn mowing billboard), $80 million for Bibby, the full MLE for then-top of the free agent class Keon Clark and other signings pushing the team well over the Luxury Tax threshold - a particularly dubious position for a small market team

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_1_227/ai_98126947/

I remember reading a column in the Bee at the time of the Clark signing (sadly I can't find it now) in which the Maloofs basically admitted they were going all in for the 02-03 season and it was essentially a championship or bust. Webber's knee did just that in Dallas and every move afterward has been an attempt to recover.

I don't necessarily mean to be a Maloof apologist, particularly at this point: They were born into money and haven't shown the best business acumen or media savvy, which is a major reason we've gotten to this point. But they also aren't Donald Sterling or Clay Bennett or George Shinn - otherwise they wouldn't have bothered screwing around for a decade with Sacramento and just focused their efforts entirely on getting an arena elsewhere. They're in the Mark Cuban mold - enthusiastic Peter Pans who don't know how to balance passion with budget. Unfortunately, unlike Cuban, the latter for the Maloofs became severely limited.
 
As an addition to Bill Walsh. He said its better to trade a player on year too early, than a year too late. The Maloofs were more than a year too late in some areas. This is old ground thats been gone over a thousand times.
 
swisshh said:
1. They actually should have fully unloaded most of that team much earlier and delaying the unloading lead to missing out on high picks in strong drafts. One guy they should have kept for legacy and team identity is Vlade, but he was one of the first to go.
2. The turn of the franchise did happen before the Maloofs and people tend to forget that. It was a one summer transition, followed by a period of time where teams where Petrie was working well on all fronts and teams were less cautious in trading with the Kings. (Understandable, it would be like making a trade with the Wolves right now, you just assume you won because its the Wolves you just traded with.)
3. Some people in current society have an unreasonable support of big corporate identities and I would include sports ownership in that. These people will blame a city hit harder than most any city by the financial downfall and a city that supported a team withs sellouts when their collective win percentage is less than .500. It's weird but it's not localized to this situation.
Click to expand...


You know I started to realize a couple of days ago why the Maloofs did not rebuild quicker. They kept on trying to fill in holes to make the playoffs. I think at that time they wanted get a new arena and they figured that if they did try a total rebuild around 2005-2006 people would not come to games and it would make it harder to get support to build the arena.
 
I keep hearing how the team waited too long to trade players. Webber hurt his knee on 02-03 playoffs. He played some of the next season. The season after that he was traded along with Divac and Christie. The next year Bobby Jackson. The year after Peja, leaving only Mike Bibby and Ron Artest. To me it is a very fast turn around. Within three years or so the whole thing was dismantled.

But maybe there was good reason for it. Alot of people are defending the Maloofs so who am I to argue. I have liked them over the years. I'm just wondering why things have deteriorated to this point. I'm sure the city of Sacramento has a hand in it also. Some cities are very lucky to have franchise players keep them going year in and year out for decades it seems.

Well history will soon be written for the Kings in sac and it doesn't look good right now.
 
Last edited:
Siranthony said:
I keep hearing how the team waited too long to trade players. Webber hurt his knee on 02-03 playoffs. He played some of the next season. The season after that he was traded along with Divac and Christie. The next year Bobby Jackson. The year after Peja, leaving only Mike Bibby and Ron Artest. To me it is a very fast turn around. Within three years or so the whole thing was dismantled.

But maybe there was good reason for it. Alot of people are defending the Maloofs so who am I to argue. I have liked them over the years. I'm just wondering why things have deteriorated to this point. I'm sure the city of Sacramento has a hand in it also. Some cities are very lucky to have franchise players keep them going year in and year out for decades it seems.

Well history will soon be written for the Kings in sac and it doesn't look good right now.
Click to expand...

It isn't just about them being traded. It's also who and what they were traded for. The Webber trade brought absolutely nothing in terms of a rebuild, unless you call Kenny Thomas a rising star in the league and Corliss Williamson a draft pick. We were stuck with KT for a large number of years after. Christie for Mobley was to give us more offense, get a piece for the playoffs - Doug had very little to contribute to a winning team by then. The following year they were still trying for the playoffs, and traded Peja for Artest, who to his credit was a far better player than Peja was at that time. Artest and Bonzi got us another run at the playoffs as the eighth seed.

Now how is this a fast turn around?
 
One more question. Why is Arco such a dump (to put it bluntly). I know it's almost as old as Candlestick park at 24 years old. But still, I have noticed how run down it is in recent years. Others have told me the same. It apears to have Been let go. Am I wrong?
 
Siranthony said:
One more question. Why is Arco such a dump (to put it bluntly). I know it's almost as old as Candlestick park at 24 years old. But still, I have noticed how run down it is in recent years. Others have told me the same. It apears to have Been let go. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Seems the maloofs did what the owner in "major league" did. Devalue the team so you can move. Toss in a run down arena and your good to go. I go to A's games at the colisseum and 9ers games at the stick and those 2 venues are not as run down as Arco is. The owners of those 2 teams put enough into them to make them at the very least serviceable. Arco is as big of a dump as it is because the maloofs do nothing to it. Possible to exagerate the status of the building.
 
Siranthony said:
One more question. Why is Arco such a dump (to put it bluntly). I know it's almost as old as Candlestick park at 24 years old. But still, I have noticed how run down it is in recent years. Others have told me the same. It apears to have Been let go. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Obviously your new to the fourm and don't realize that some of the things your bringing up have been discussed about 1 billion times. I mean no disrespect, but the regulars on this fourm get tired of going over the same old things to bring a new person up to snuff. If you really want answers then dig into the archives that are available.

As a bone, the arena is going down hill because it was originally built by Greg Luckenbill with his own money for around 40 million dollars. As a result the infrastructure can't even support an upgrade. The city, led by visionary, Mayor Heather Fargo, did everything they could to discourage bringing the team here in the first place. Offered nothing in the way of support for an arena, other than promising to tax the living hell out of it and the team.

As far as the arena being let go. The Maloofs put a few million dollars into the arena after taking over the team. They also spent a few million on a new training facility built right next to the arena. Because of the original infrastucture, most of the money spent on the arena was merely window dressing. Like a new PA system. Better concessions etc. There is nothing that can be done with plumbing thats imbeded in concrete. The original layout of the floor plan is set to accomodate basketball and thats about it. Yes, you can play hockey there, but to do so you have to reverse the floor plan, and in doing so you lose about half the seats on the lower level. The Maloofs have long wanted to bring hockey to sacramento, but the current arena makes it impossible to to.

Bottom line is, the arena was built quickly and on the cheap. But it got the Kings here. From that point on, it was up to ownership and the city to eventually find a way to improve the situation with a new arena. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened.
 
Last edited:
I am new here for the most part. And you make good points. But what is the excuse for not painting the place, having an old weather worn arco sign and dead landscaping in the parking lot? I'm sure there is more but you get the idea.
 
fansinceday1 said:
I totally agree. Seems the maloofs did what the owner in "major league" did. Devalue the team so you can move.
Click to expand...

This has been covered a thousand times, but I'll say it again. The Maloofs wouldn't have any reason to "devalue" the team in order to allow a move. If they wanted to move, they could simply move. To suggest that they would deliberately sabotage their profits in order to accomplish something they could have done perfectly well without sabotaging their profits is silly.
 
Siranthony said:
Is this a serious question Chief? I know I'm talking about the elephant in the room. But I think I have valid points. Is it just the economy? Or are there other factors to the low attendace?
Click to expand...

Painting concrete walls with river rock is a valid point? Suggesting that the trees that line the parking lot are dead is a valid point? I'm curious about your self-evaluation methods. If you have never been to Arco, it would make a little more sense. If that is the case, I wonder why you haven't simply looked at photography of the area to help inform your "valid points."
 
The last three times I was there I noticed how bad the Arco sign looked. Like it hadent been replaced in ages. I went to Disney on ice recently and the Arco sign was removed. You could see the paint and holes underneath. It was obvious the exterior had not been painted in a long time. The interior seating looks ancient and tacked together. A coworker mentioned the landscaping in the parking lot. The place is run down period. It's depressing. I don't know what arena you go to but it's not the same one I do.
 
Siranthony said:
I am new here for the most part. And you make good points. But what is the excuse for not painting the place, having an old weather worn arco sign and dead landscaping in the parking lot? I'm sure there is more but you get the idea.
Click to expand...

The entire arena was repainted and a lot of the landscaping was redone. As I said, most of what was done was window dressing. The players locker rooms and showers are half the size of other arena's. Its been said that at times there's no hot water in the visitors showers. All the electrical and plumbing, which are inadequite, all run through concrete. There are major problems, and those problems won't be fixed with a little paint. Now you can nic pic if you want to, but I don't see where its revelant to the need for a new arena.
 
fansinceday1 said:
I totally agree. Seems the maloofs did what the owner in "major league" did. Devalue the team so you can move. Toss in a run down arena and your good to go. I go to A's games at the colisseum and 9ers games at the stick and those 2 venues are not as run down as Arco is. The owners of those 2 teams put enough into them to make them at the very least serviceable. Arco is as big of a dump as it is because the maloofs do nothing to it. Possible to exagerate the status of the building.
Click to expand...

A study was done by experts. The conclusion was that in order to fix the arena, you'd have to tear it down. Let me ask you this. If you have an arena that has no future, and eventually needs to be replaced, why would you put substantial amounts of money into that arena just to make it look better. You'd just be throwing more good money after bad. One of the first things the Maloofs did was being in experts to see what they could do in way of improving the arena. They wanted to expand the seating if possible and upgrade the electrical and most of the infrastruture. They were told it couldn't be done.

As far as devalueing the team in order to move. What planet do you live on? They own the team. They can move anytime they want, and they don't need our permission. Only the permission of the owners. Which just about every team that wanted to move has gotten. Do you think they intentionally tried to devalue the team in order to soften the blow? Or to possibly lessen the hatred toward them. If they're moving, why the hell would they even care if you or I dislike them. If they devalue the team, it becomes worth less money on paper. I doubt thats one of their goals.

I'll be honest. If I were the Maloofs, and I read some of these posts, I'd flip this town the bird and be gone tomorrow. Its to their credit that they're still here.
 
bajaden said:
A study was done by experts. The conclusion was that in order to fix the arena, you'd have to tear it down. Let me ask you this. If you have an arena that has no future, and eventually needs to be replaced, why would you put substantial amounts of money into that arena just to make it look better. You'd just be throwing more good money after bad. One of the first things the Maloofs did was being in experts to see what they could do in way of improving the arena. They wanted to expand the seating if possible and upgrade the electrical and most of the infrastruture. They were told it couldn't be done.

As far as devalueing the team in order to move. What planet do you live on? They own the team. They can move anytime they want, and they don't need our permission. Only the permission of the owners. Which just about every team that wanted to move has gotten. Do you think they intentionally tried to devalue the team in order to soften the blow? Or to possibly lessen the hatred toward them. If they're moving, why the hell would they even care if you or I dislike them. If they devalue the team, it becomes worth less money on paper. I doubt thats one of their goals.

I'll be honest. If I were the Maloofs, and I read some of these posts, I'd flip this town the bird and be gone tomorrow. Its to their credit that they're still here.
Click to expand...

Well said. To the conspiracy theorists who think this was a master plan to move, I just laugh. They are only hurting themselves by de-valuaing a team, and they can move any time they want. This was merely a part of the rebuilding process that every team goes through and happened to coincide with upcoming CBA negotiations, so of course they weren't going to dump money into this team the past couple seasons.
 
bajaden said:
As far as devalueing the team in order to move. What planet do you live on? They own the team. They can move anytime they want, and they don't need our permission. Only the permission of the owners. Which just about every team that wanted to move has gotten.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? It's lately been claimed that last year, four teams asked the NBA for permission to move, yet none of them moved.

I don't think anyone but the owners, and a handful of people in Stern's office. really have any idea what goes on with these things. For all I know, the Kings also applied last year.
 
Why would the Maloofs go with the trouble and tremendous expense to puposely 'sabotage' the organization by placing a bad team and coaches on the court for years just so that one day they announce to the world "we're leaving because we're losing money (while they giggle under their breath and later in closed doors high-5 each other and yell we did it)? It doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
I personally never said anything about intentionally devaluing the team. That doesn't make sense unless there is some reason I don't know. But the team has been devalued none the less. My impression is the Maloofs haven't gotten what they want so they are letting things go until they do here or somewhere else. It's not a smart buisiness move IMO. Yes maybe the plumbing is run through concrete etc. There is no excuse for not keeping it up to snuff and looking good for the people who are paying to go there.
 
Last edited:
ArcoKings said:
Why would the Maloofs go with the trouble and tremendous expense to puposely 'sabotage' the organization by placing a bad team and coaches on the court for years just so that one day they announce to the world "we're leaving because we're losing money (while they giggle under their breath and later in closed doors high-5 each other and yell we did it)? It doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

While I'm not endorsing either side of the argument, they cut payroll dramatically, and even slashed coach pay, despite it being harder to get good coaches who're willing to run a weaker team. That's not "sabotage," but you'd have to be either dim or wildly overoptimistic to not get that doing so might seriously lower the quality of your product, wouldn't you?

They're not saying they're losing money, they claim that Forbes was wrong, that they actually made a few million last year. But who knows what the truth is?
 
bajaden said:
I'll be honest. If I were the Maloofs, and I read some of these posts, I'd flip this town the bird and be gone tomorrow. Its to their credit that they're still here.
Click to expand...

Oh screw them if they can't take some criticism. If they were in a bigtime sports town they would be getting pummeled by the media and fans on a daily basis, not being treated with kid gloves. And they have been treated with kid gloves. They better be getting use to it cause if they continue their ways down in Anaheim the papers will skewer them and the fans will forget about them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

King Baller
This is why we love the Kings
Replies
9
Views
1K
MizzouKing
MizzouKing
PorchSurfin
Mike Brown vs Rick Adelman
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Capt. Factorial
Capt. Factorial
pdxKingsFan
Greg Lukenbill talks to Sacramento Historical Society
Replies
4
Views
2K
pdxKingsFan
pdxKingsFan
captain bill
Monte Interview in the Athletic
Replies
22
Views
2K
TaxMan
TaxMan
QWERTYLICIOUS
THANK YOU, KINGS!!!
Replies
5
Views
869
pdxKingsFan
pdxKingsFan
Back
Top