Stern's Stern Words - MUST READ!

[Superman]

People have been saying that the Clippers are going to be good for many years now. I'll believe it when I see it. What usually happens is that they make a push for a season or two, and then they spend the next 8 or 9 years in the lottery.

And you're right that Stern might look at a third team in SoCal as a competitive issue in the region, but with several teams needing a new arena and Samueli trying to get a team to play in the Honda Center, it's not like it's not on the table. There's been so much talk lately that it's sounding more and more like an inevitability. And at the end of the day, it's not up to Stern, it's up to the owners. And I don't think there are very many owners in the NBA that are sympathetic to Sterling.

Lastly, there would be new fans that don't attend Lakers or Clippers games because they're either too far from downtown LA or because they refuse to pay for Clippers tickets. That would be the immediate target demographic for any team in Anaheim, and I think it would be enough to sell the place out for a couple of years.

 

[mr. moustache]

It's a time of tough decisions for many. If you need to let the team go, then do that. But please don't call everyone else who would like to have an arena in our city an idiot.

Awkward use of words by me. I was merely trying to say that it doesn't take an idiot to not want to publicly fund an arena. I've heard quite a bit of comments about "small minds", "ignorant politicians", etc.

I hope the Kings stay in Sac and I hope they get a new arena.

 

[Bricklayer]

San Jose just still seems to me to be the preferable option from the Maloofs/NBAs perspective, business wise. 2nd team in a market rather than third. Already have the building themselves of course. And the big one -- close enough to Sacto, and with the Sharks already considered NorCal's hockey team, that they might be able to move into the new market, and still keep much of their Sacto region fanbase and TV rights. Anywhere else they go, they lose Sacramento + NorCal. In San Jose they might get to keep that whole region + gain the South Bay. And since so many of the idiots over on the Bee boards seem to think a two hour drive both ways for big city entertainment is just fine and hunky dorry, I'm sure the distance will barely deter them.

 

[beb0p]

San Jose just still seems to me to be the preferable option from the Maloofs/NBAs perspective, business wise. 2nd team in a market rather than third. Already have the building themselves of course. And the big one -- close enough to Sacto, and with the Sharks already considered NorCal's hockey team, that they might be able to move into the new market, and still keep much of their Sacto region fanbase and TV rights. Anywhere else they go, they lose Sacramento + NorCal. In San Jose they might get to keep that whole region + gain the South Bay. And since so many of the idiots over on the Bee boards seem to think a two hour drive both ways for big city entertainment is just fine and hunky dorry, I'm sure the distance will barely deter them.

It's only 45 mins one way by high-speed rail. Which will arrive just in time for Sacramentans to catch the Kings in HP Pavilion, the way things are going. :{

Anyway, that's my opinion as well. SJ is head and shoulders above all other locations. And it'll be such a simple move: play maybe a few games in SJ because "Arco is undergoing renovation" and test out the market. If the response is good, play more games there the next season and so on. And finally, one day, the teams are playing all the games in SJ.

In Sacramento, I'm surprised when I meet someone who is not a Kings fan. In the Sillicon Valley, I'm surprised when I meet someone who is a Warrior fan. There is very little Warriors loyalty here, there is ample opportunity for a new NBA to swoop in. I don't know if So CA can support three team. I know the Bay Area can support two.

Sacramento needs to shape up and fight to keep the team there.

 

[Telemachus]

That has always been an option, but the current arena can't make and remove ice fast enough to support a NHL team. I think the most recent analysis I read says Sac can't support both NBA and NHL, but who knows? Be nice to host a game or two and maybe at least be an option......

Arco also doesn't set up well for Hockey (you lose about 5000 seats), which is one reason why Sac has never really entertained the option of NHL before.

 

[kennadog]

Arco also doesn't set up well for Hockey (you lose about 5000 seats), which is one reason why Sac has never really entertained the option of NHL before.

Actually the real problem for hockey is the out-dated, often broken and slow ice-making ability at the arena. Modern arenas can make ice in half a day or less, while at Arco it takes 2 days. Just can't get the turn around done quickly.

Edit: Missed Warhawk's post on this point. Sorry. He's also right that analyses done seem to think Sacramento can't support two professional sports teams.

Also, I think Sacramento should help build arena just to have an arena. Even if we had no sports team, I would support this. Why can KC build a nice arena with no sports team to help at all, but Sacramento can't build an arena or a baseball stadium. Incredible. Bad economy isn't any excuse, because when the Kings were on top and the economy was flying high, Sacramento couldn't get it done then, either. I think its pathetic, but is the typical timid, boring development vision that Sacramento has always lacked.

 

[Telemachus]

Actually the real problem for hockey is the out-dated, often broken and slow ice-making ability at the arena. Modern arenas can make ice in half a day or less, while at Arco it takes 2 days. Just can't get the turn around done quickly.

I agree that the out-dated ice making is a problem as well. But losing so many seats in an arena that already doesn't seat a lot by today's standards also hurts. They had the same problem when they had indoor soccer. They would lose around 5000 seats because of the way they had to set up the court, with the difference being that it never really caused a problem for soccer. For the NHL it would be unacceptable.

 

[kennadog]

I agree that the out-dated ice making is a problem as well. But losing so many seats in an arena that already doesn't seat a lot by today's standards also hurts. They had the same problem when they had indoor soccer. They would lose around 5000 seats because of the way they had to set up the court, with the difference being that it never really caused a problem for soccer. For the NHL it would be unacceptable.

Yes, it seems to me I read in one of the reports that Arco's court/ice are set up differently in relation to the seating from other arenas. That's one, of many, problems with ARco.