Sam Amick Q+A with Warriors owner Joe Lacob

[Section 101]

Q: Switching topics on you here. What do you make of the Kings’ potential move to Anaheim and does that excite you in terms of penetrating the market in Sacramento if the Kings leave?
A: I’m just going to wait until I hear the discussion at the Board of Governor’s meeting (on April 14-15). You could argue that it’s a good thing if they left because we’d have all of Northern California, but you could also argue that it’s a bad thing because it sets a precedent for a team moving into another team’s market that they don’t want. The Lakers and Clippers don’t want them (a source says the Board of Governor’s vote for the extension of the March 1 relocation deadline was 27-2, with the Lakers and Clippers the only dissenting votes).

Q: The whole story did make me think of you, because the San Jose discussion is out there.
A: It’s out there, but I don’t think it’s ever likely to happen.

Q: The league has definitively told me that there are no territorial rights, but I’ve heard you talk about them. What’s your understanding of that?
A: There are territorial rights. Seventy-five miles. The issue is they can be overturned by the majority vote of the owners.

Q: The league says otherwise.
A: That’s not true. There’s a 75-mile rule. That’s the fact, but it can be overturned so you decide how you want to refer to that. We just paid the largest price ever paid nominally for a team, and for us to have a (he pauses). First of all, why would anyone want to do it? Anyone who’s smart wouldn’t want to pay a huge number - and it would be a huge number - to go put a team in San Jose and have now half the market. Why would you do that? And if you’re the people who bid before, as an example, why would you pay all that money when you could’ve just bought the Warriors. - or half the Warriors.

I would not pay the price I paid, and say I was going to share the Bay Area market with someone. No way.

Q: Where does your TV rights deal rank?
A: I renegotiated my local media rights. We have a deal that now matches the size of the market. We’re the sixth largest market, and I think we’re roughly the sixth-largest team (in terms of TV rights).



Read more: Q&A with Warriors owner Joe Lacob
Tune to SportsNet Central at 6, 10:30 and midnight on Comcast SportsNet Bay Area for more on this story ​

 

[JB_kings]

See we aren't just bitter jilted whiners. The arguments some of us have been making are solid ones that NBA owners are very concerned about. When your team is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, why would you just allow someone to walk in and dilute your team's value? I think a pretty dangerous precendent is going to be set here.

 

[Showtime]

This comes with the territory though. Owners in top markets know they have enough to support multiple teams, so guys in the bay, LA, and NY area know that's always an issue. Just because they don't like it means it's bad. As far as precedent, the Clippers moved from San Diego to LA, and the Nets are going to move to Brooklyn, in Knick territory. So as far as setting a bad precedent, he's wrong.

 

[Section 101]

This comes with the territory though. Owners in top markets know they have enough to support multiple teams, so guys in the bay, LA, and NY area know that's always an issue. Just because they don't like it means it's bad. As far as precedent, the Clippers moved from San Diego to LA, and the Nets are going to move to Brooklyn, in Knick territory. So as far as setting a bad precedent, he's wrong.

Not good at geography? Newark and Brooklyn are about the same distance from Manhattan. The Nets already share the same market.

Yes the Clippers moved to LA, but at the time they were farther apart too and the Lakers didnt feel threatend by the move. Now that the clips have been established there another team moving into the area is a different scenario.

 

[Bricklayer]

The problem here from the perspective of Kings fans is that here are just not enough NBA owners for whom such things are a real consideration. The L.A. owners, Bay Area, Chicago, New York...its really hard to see a second team trying to move into even huge cities like Phily or Boston, so for the majority of owners they would probably if anything LIKE there to be a precedent so that they themselves might have the option to move nto a market someday if it came to that.

Whether enoguh of them could be convinced to vote no for purposes of the "greater good of the game" or some such is another question.

 

[Section 101]

The problem here from the perspective of Kings fans is that here are just not enough NBA owners for whom such things are a real consideration. The L.A. owners, Bay Area, Chicago, New York...its really hard to see a second team trying to move into even huge cities like Phily or Boston, so for the majority of owners they would probably if anything LIKE there to be a precedent so that they themselves might have the option to move nto a market someday if it came to that.

Whether enoguh of them could be convinced to vote no for purposes of the "greater good of the game" or some such is another question.

The problem with alot of the other citys is they don't have other arenas already built. When they get a new one the old one gets torn down. So the existing team has the market already established especially the Celtics, Bulls. Now the Mavs would be an interesting one. A team could move into Cowboys stadium. Not the ideal seating situation, but it would be an option. We know about San Jose.

But with the Nets moving, that opens up the old arena for a new team to move. They also have the Nassau Veterns Memorial Coliseum where the Nets played previously in the ABA and the Islanders currently play. Its about 20 miles from new york on long island.

What I did know was the Rockets were in San Diego from 67-71. I knew the Clips were there so they have had 2 teams come and go. New Orleans had the Jazz and now the Hornets on the verge of moving. Charlotte had the hornets move and got the bobcats. I'm sure Baja may know of more cities that have had 2 teams. But the model for small markets has been broken for a long time. If the league wants to keep the small markets then it better keep the ones who have shown the support, ie Kings.

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

I believe that if Ellison is willing the spend enough money and wants his own team in San Jose bad enough, he'll get it even without all this Kings to Anaheim stuff. If the Kings don't move, there can very well be 3 teams in norcal.

Ellison is willing to pay a huge premium as we saw from his bid for the Hornets. The NBA can sell the team to Ellison and make a cool $50 million quick and make the team economically viable.

 

[Showtime]

Not good at geography? Newark and Brooklyn are about the same distance from Manhattan. The Nets already share the same market.

The move still had to be approved, and it was. And Newark and Brooklyn may be within a similar geographical distance regarding the Knick market, but as far as market share and impact, not many New Yorkers give two craps about a Newark based team. Moving from Newark to one of the boroughs is a much bigger deal than the distance may dictate at first glance.

Yes the Clippers moved to LA, but at the time they were farther apart too and the Lakers didnt feel threatend by the move. Now that the clips have been established there another team moving into the area is a different scenario.

But the Clippers haven't negatively impacted the Lakers. And aside from a small group of hardcore fans, they don't have a good fanbase in the area. If anybody should be worried about negatively impacting a team, it would be the Clippers, not the Lakers.

 

[fnordius]

If you look at a population density map of the US (http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/ams-usa-population.png), and the populations of cities, it's not hard to see why the NBA is reportedly pushing the Maloofs to SoCal.

If teams were distributed by population, NYC would have around 6 teams, LA 5, Chicago 3, 2 each for the SF bay area, Dallas and Philly, and everyone else would get 0-1. That fact might annoy the owners of the Knicks, Nets, Lakers, Clippers and Bulls, but it still leaves 25 smaller market owners, many of whom might make more by moving, to outvote them.

As for the new GSW owner, good luck with single-handedly keeping a team out of San Jose.

 

[Section 101]

The move still had to be approved, and it was. And Newark and Brooklyn may be within a similar geographical distance regarding the Knick market, but as far as market share and impact, not many New Yorkers give two craps about a Newark based team. Moving from Newark to one of the boroughs is a much bigger deal than the distance may dictate at first glance.

Yes the clips move was approved, you also need to look at how long ago it was and how a lot has changed. It was 1984. The NBA just got a TV contract in 1979. 1982 was the firt year the finals were shown live, previously on tape delay. 1984 they got a new cable deal for extended markets fostering the growth of regional networks.

Nobody knew how much the NBA would grow over the next decade.

 

[Section 101]

If you look at a population density map of the US (http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/ams-usa-population.png), and the populations of cities, it's not hard to see why the NBA is reportedly pushing the Maloofs to SoCal.

If teams were distributed by population, NYC would have around 6 teams, LA 5, Chicago 3, 2 each for the SF bay area, Dallas and Philly, and everyone else would get 0-1. That fact might annoy the owners of the Knicks, Nets, Lakers, Clippers and Bulls, but it still leaves 25 smaller market owners, many of whom might make more by moving, to outvote them.

As for the new GSW owner, good luck with single-handedly keeping a team out of San Jose.

The flaw in your analysis is that the population map would be divided equally between the teams. When in fact if a team is a perenial winner (Lakers) and others are losers (Clippers) the ratio swings dramatically one way.