Why Not an Expansion Team in Sacramento?

VF21 said:
And so we finally get it. You're a Laker fan.
Click to expand...

Yes I am. But I told that to many people on here before in earlier posts when I first came on the site. But I am a basketball fan first and to get back to the point was that Sacramento doesnt deserve to lose the Kings. So what if I am a rival of yours. Does it really matter when both of us are working together to try to keep the Kings in Sacramento? I have never came on here and taunted you for anything. I never said hahah too bad Kings fans this and that and this and that. Nope! Not my style! If you read back, I was always trying to encourage by saying ok wonder if there was a way to get an expansion team, just in case they made the agreement stand. Most Lakers fans dont give a care if you leave or not but I do. Does it matter that I support Mike's organization of keeping the Kings in Sacramento? Yes, to me it does! If there was no chance of Expansion would I support the Kings going to Seattle? NO WAY JOSE!

But I am realistic too, and believe that either way your going to get a team. Either the BOG says the agreement is valid or not, you going to get a team. With Larry Ellison or Burkle, we will have that great rivalry again. I dont blame the fans of Sacramento for not having the rivalry like it once was. Not your fault. It was the Maloof fault. I support the idea of blowing this team up and getting the cowbells back.

Many may not like me because I am a Lakers fan but I know in my heart I try to support the Kings fans effort as much as I can. To me, I dont like the sneaky way this is being handled. Neither party(Maloofs/Hansen) deserve to have a team. I wish I had money!
 
butteredbiscuit said:
Yes I am. But I told that to many people on here before in earlier posts when I first came on the site. But I am a basketball fan first and to get back to the point was that Sacramento doesnt deserve to lose the Kings. So what if I am a rival of yours. Does it really matter when both of us are working together to try to keep the Kings in Sacramento? I have never came on here and taunted you for anything. I never said hahah too bad Kings fans this and that and this and that. Nope! Not my style! If you read back, I was always trying to encourage by saying ok wonder if there was a way to get an expansion team, just in case they made the agreement stand. Most Lakers fans dont give a care if you leave or not but I do. Does it matter that I support Mike's organization of keeping the Kings in Sacramento? Yes, to me it does! If there was no chance of Expansion would I support the Kings going to Seattle? NO WAY JOSE!

But I am realistic too, and believe that either way your going to get a team. Either the BOG says the agreement is valid or not, you going to get a team. With Larry Ellison or Burkle, we will have that great rivalry again. I dont blame the fans of Sacramento for not having the rivalry like it once was. Not your fault. It was the Maloof fault. I support the idea of blowing this team up and getting the cowbells back.

Many may not like me because I am a Lakers fan but I know in my heart I try to support the Kings fans effort as much as I can. To me, I dont like the sneaky way this is being handled. Neither party(Maloofs/Hansen) deserve to have a team. I wish I had money!
Click to expand...

We thank you for the support and it's true that you're not like a lot of Laker fans (with some notable exceptions) that have come here to give us grief. BUT you keep saying getting an expansion team or accepting anything less than keeping our team would be okay. It's NOT okay. You cannot possibly imagine how we feel. I understand what you're saying but you need to understand that this is an almost unbearable situation for us. We have given our heart to this team for 28 years. We're clinging to our last hope that it won't all be taken away. When you point out that it'll be okay if they go because we can just start over with an expansion team, it's just not what we want to hear.

I can't speak for anyone else, but right now I'm not interested in people telling us we need to be realistic and face the possibility of losing the team and having nothing to look forward to except expansion. Dude, we know that. Believe me. We've known it and lived with it for a very long time. We don't need - and in my case really don't appreciate - it being thrown in our faces time and time again.

Reality is for people who have given up their dreams. I haven't given up. And I won't.
 
butteredbiscuit said:
Many may not like me because I am a Lakers fan but I know in my heart I try to support the Kings fans effort as much as I can. To me, I dont like the sneaky way this is being handled. Neither party(Maloofs/Hansen) deserve to have a team. I wish I had money!
Click to expand...

I have no issue with a fan of any team taking an interest in this situation and viewing it for what it is, which is what you seem to be doing. That said, I DO think Hansen deserves to have a team. He has a market, he has the money, he has a deal in place for a new arena that is largely privately financed - hard to say he doesn't deserve one. But not the Kings.

butteredbiscuit said:
If there was no chance of Expansion would I support the Kings going to Seattle? NO WAY JOSE!
Click to expand...

There is NO chance of expansion for Sacramento.

If the NBA feels that a sale to the Seattle group is better than keeping them in their existing market then there is absolutely no chance they would grant an expansion team. Without an anchor tenant, any chance of an arena deal dies and the NBA will not return to Sacramento. Not for many, many years at least.

butteredbiscuit said:
Either the BOG says the agreement is valid or not
Click to expand...

One last point. The BOG isn't going to decide whether the agreement is valid or not. I have no doubt that the paperwork signed by Hansen & the Maloofs is "valid". What the BOG does is vote to approve all sales. For an ownership group staying in the same market, this is usually a formality where the finances of the buyer have been vetted and the BOG is just rubber stamping the transfer of the franchise. But for something like this, they are deciding whether or not relocating the team is in the best interests of the team and the league. It's a lot more subjective than simply checking whether the agreement is valid.
 
butteredbiscuit said:
wonder if there was a way to get an expansion team, just in case
Click to expand...

Think about it this way.....given how rich Seattle's ownership team is....maybe they should buy the Lakers and give LA an expansion team? Us Sacramento fans would be very supportive of the idea of LA getting an expansion team very quickly after the Lakers packed up and left. Trust me. After all, Buss would make heaps of money on the team sale at above market price, right? What's the big deal?
 
funkykingston said:
There is NO chance of expansion for Sacramento.

If the NBA feels that a sale to the Seattle group is better than keeping them in their existing market then there is absolutely no chance they would grant an expansion team. Without an anchor tenant, any chance of an arena deal dies and the NBA will not return to Sacramento. Not for many, many years at least.
Click to expand...


Disagree. Sacramento has proven to be a viable NBA market, has motivated wealthy buyers, and outline of an arena deal... if for some reason the sale of the Kings to Hansen isn't blocked I could see the NBA rectifying a bad situation by giving us an expansion team just as easy as it would give one to Seattle.

On to the topic I have to be honest about how I feel. I would prefer to keep the Kings franchise where it belongs, right here in Sacramento given its history and ties to the community. As for the current roster itself though, I'm not the most optimistic guy concerning it, and I wouldn't be overly upset in terms of getting an expansion team instead
 
Like just about everyone else, I'd prefer to have the Kings stay right where they are but we have to take into account that this isn't unprecedented. The NBA let the Hornets move to New Orleans and then they gave Charlotte an expansion franchise so when we ask "why would the league do that", it's because they already have.

That being said, expansion into Vancouver and Seattle would be the way to go with New Orleans moving to the EC to even it out at 16 and 16 if expansion is even on the table at all.

Let's assume a worse case scenario of the BOG granting the relocation and there is no expansion. Would this board be fine with Burkle and Mastrov buying the Bucks in a couple years and moving them here or would everyone be done with the NBA for good?
 
I was going to post a note similar to Warhawk's note. The first NBA team I followed was from the City of Lakes. The only addition I'd like to add in this "what if" scenario is what if the Buss family got tired of owning basketball teams and got into a snit with the city of Los Angeles. Who cares why but let us say that the city was trying very hard to keep the team in LA and had negotiated a great deal with the help of the NBA. The Busses looked at the deal and said they didn't like it. Because of the further snit this caused, they secretly started negotiations with people from Seattle yet all the time said they had no intention to sell. The Busses were lying. Then, boom, it was obvious they were going to sell and an agreement had been struck. The Busses stated they would not negotiate with a group of owners from LA. No reason is given.

So the door is slammed shut and a team that has a long history in LA will be moved if the BOG agrees to this, Now the BOG collectively thinks "this sucks." The Commissioner tells the city to come up with a group to buy the Lakers at a fair price. The implication is clear that the NBA is not happy with the Buss attitude and in fact think it is a bit devious and certainly is unfair to the city of LA. The Busses had already made one attempt to leave LA which the NBA turned down in order to give LA the chance to meet a certain set of criteria to keep the Lakers. LA met the criteria and everybody was happy including half the Buss family. But a day later, the Busses rejected the new deal.

So now we are up to speed. The Busses had tried to leave LA but were blocked by the NBA. They then secretly began a negotiation and when that became public, they said they would not negotiate with an owners group from LA, who knows why. In oher words, even if a group from LA could match the Seattle group penny for penny, they would not consider the offer from LA.

So here we are. Now what? The easy thing to do would be to ignore the great bid by a group from LA and move the team to Seattle hoping that the NBA would start an expansion team in LA. How would you feel?
 
Last edited:
Stern has already commented earlier this year, that Sacramento would be unlikely to get an expansion team. Maybe he's changed his mind, but Seattle would be a much better candidate to earn an expansion team that Sacramento. It makes far more sense to keep the Kings right where they are and give Seattle a team.
 
Last edited:
kennadog said:
Stern has already commented earlier this year, that Sacramento would be unlikeable to get an expansion team. Maybe he's changed his mind, but Seattle would be a much better candidate to earn an expansion team that Sacramento. It makes far more sense to keep the Kings right where they are and give Seattle a team.
Click to expand...

It's certainly the most logical and the simplest of the solutions. It makes no sense to take away the Kings and then give Sacramento an expansion team. If anyone should get an expansion team out of this whole mess it is Seattle.

Kings should stay in Sacramento where they have history, proven fan base, owners willing to keep the team here and get the arena deal done AND political backing of the region. Seattle lost the team because politicians did not fight for the team and they were not interested in working out an arena deal.

Sacramento situation is very different. Political power of Sacramento wants the team to remain and have a strong framework of the arena deal in place. All it needs is new ownership which is willing and able to do their part in this whole process and with Burkle/Mastrov we would have that.
 
VF21 said:
We thank you for the support and it's true that you're not like a lot of Laker fans (with some notable exceptions) that have come here to give us grief. BUT you keep saying getting an expansion team or accepting anything less than keeping our team would be okay. It's NOT okay. You cannot possibly imagine how we feel. I understand what you're saying but you need to understand that this is an almost unbearable situation for us. We have given our heart to this team for 28 years. We're clinging to our last hope that it won't all be taken away. When you point out that it'll be okay if they go because we can just start over with an expansion team, it's just not what we want to hear.

I can't speak for anyone else, but right now I'm not interested in people telling us we need to be realistic and face the possibility of losing the team and having nothing to look forward to except expansion. Dude, we know that. Believe me. We've known it and lived with it for a very long time. We don't need - and in my case really don't appreciate - it being thrown in our faces time and time again.

Reality is for people who have given up their dreams. I haven't given up. And I won't.
Click to expand...

Yes I do understand. The LA Rams! I completely understand. I wont mentioned that the owners wife took the husband out on a boat, well she is the owner now.

I know you didnt want to hear it but I am trying to bring out a positive out of it. Let me tell you why. I got a message from a friend that told me that the NBA was going to vote on All-Star Weekend on the approving of the Maloofs and Hansen deal. Now I am going to snoop around and see if there is anything on this but usually he is right on the money. But I do want to backtract something about Ellison though. He also said that Ellison decided not to get into the bidding because he said that it is not worth spending $525 million for the Kings. But he would if everything else fails between Burkle-Mastov, he would get into it. But next week, KJ will come out with Burkle and Mastrov on a press conference. They should have a matching offer done by then.

But after this post, I wont bring up expansion anymore but you know how I feel about it if the "Real" Kings have to abide by the agreement they have with the Hansen's. Would you still support the new team if that was the case?
 
butteredbiscuit said:
But after this post, I wont bring up expansion anymore but you know how I feel about it if the "Real" Kings have to abide by the agreement they have with the Hansen's. Would you still support the new team if that was the case?
Click to expand...

I think most of us will cross that bridge if we get to it. If the team leaves, that bridge may never arrive for us to cross anyways......
 
butteredbiscuit said:
Yes I do understand. The LA Rams! I completely understand. I wont mentioned that the owners wife took the husband out on a boat, well she is the owner now.

I know you didnt want to hear it but I am trying to bring out a positive out of it. Let me tell you why. I got a message from a friend that told me that the NBA was going to vote on All-Star Weekend on the approving of the Maloofs and Hansen deal. Now I am going to snoop around and see if there is anything on this but usually he is right on the money. But I do want to backtract something about Ellison though. He also said that Ellison decided not to get into the bidding because he said that it is not worth spending $525 million for the Kings. But he would if everything else fails between Burkle-Mastov, he would get into it. But next week, KJ will come out with Burkle and Mastrov on a press conference. They should have a matching offer done by then.

But after this post, I wont bring up expansion anymore but you know how I feel about it if the "Real" Kings have to abide by the agreement they have with the Hansen's. Would you still support the new team if that was the case?
Click to expand...

I will follow the team wherever it ends up. The Kings minus the Maloofs are twice the team we have been watching the last 5 years. We have no sports in Sacramento other than the Kings. There is not even any big time college sports. Gotta watch something! The subtraction of the Maloofs is a positive.
 
butteredbiscuit said:
Yes I do understand. The LA Rams! I completely understand. I wont mentioned that the owners wife took the husband out on a boat, well she is the owner now.

I know you didnt want to hear it but I am trying to bring out a positive out of it. Let me tell you why. I got a message from a friend that told me that the NBA was going to vote on All-Star Weekend on the approving of the Maloofs and Hansen deal. Now I am going to snoop around and see if there is anything on this but usually he is right on the money. But I do want to backtract something about Ellison though. He also said that Ellison decided not to get into the bidding because he said that it is not worth spending $525 million for the Kings. But he would if everything else fails between Burkle-Mastov, he would get into it. But next week, KJ will come out with Burkle and Mastrov on a press conference. They should have a matching offer done by then.

But after this post, I wont bring up expansion anymore but you know how I feel about it if the "Real" Kings have to abide by the agreement they have with the Hansen's. Would you still support the new team if that was the case?
Click to expand...

With all due respect, do you really think that David Stern would tell Kevin Johnson that he will give him a chance to present his proposal at the BOG meeting in april, and then invite Burkle to meet with him to hear what his proposal is, and then pull the rug out from everyone by having the BOG vote on the sale at the all star break? You want to talk about a PR black eye, that would be it. I don't believe that BS for a second. There are too many irons in the fire right now, and if anything, it would be more logical for Stern to postphone the BOG meeting to give more time for all parties to work things out.

As far as expansion goes, if you apply logic to the subject, why would you take an extablished team, that has a comprable offer on the table, and the funding of a new arena, and pull them out of the city that has done everything the league asked them to do, and then give them an expansion team, when all you have to do, is give Seattle an expansion team. Which of the two things is simpler. If a city that already has a team, has done everything necessary to keep that team, is deemed unworthy of keeping that team, why then, would they be worthy of an expansion team. Where's the logic in that? If the BOG decides that Sacramento isn't capable of supporting the current team, they'll never see the light of day when it comes to an expansion team. So you might as well drop that daydream as an alternative. It will never happen.

We either keep our team, or we'll never have another team. Period!!!!!!! By the way, do you know why Kansas City lost the team? Because they had a fan base that was in love with the Chiefs and Royals. The Kings were an afterthought. One of the same reasons St. Louis, my home town lost the Hawks. Does that sound familar? Don't think for a second that the BOG won't take into consideration the fact that Seattle has the Seahawks and the Mariners, which is part of the reason for the Sonics departure in the first place. People only have so much money to spend on such things. The Kings are the only show in town. They command the market. Right now, the only thing lacking is the product, and new ownership would take care of that problem.

Right now, all of us have our eye on a prize. Only one prize. The Kings! We don't want to hear about starting over with an expansion team, which isn't likely to happen anyway. I'm not in the mood for a defeatist attitude, and thats what an expansion team would be. So I'm begging you, drop it, because frankly, your starting to irritate me.
 
bajaden said:
With all due respect, do you really think that David Stern would tell Kevin Johnson that he will give him a chance to present his proposal at the BOG meeting in april, and then invite Burkle to meet with him to hear what his proposal is, and then pull the rug out from everyone by having the BOG vote on the sale at the all star break? You want to talk about a PR black eye, that would be it. I don't believe that BS for a second. There are too many irons in the fire right now, and if anything, it would be more logical for Stern to postphone the BOG meeting to give more time for all parties to work things out.

As far as expansion goes, if you apply logic to the subject, why would you take an extablished team, that has a comprable offer on the table, and the funding of a new arena, and pull them out of the city that has done everything the league asked them to do, and then give them an expansion team, when all you have to do, is give Seattle an expansion team. Which of the two things is simpler. If a city that already has a team, has done everything necessary to keep that team, is deemed unworthy of keeping that team, why then, would they be worthy of an expansion team. Where's the logic in that? If the BOG decides that Sacramento isn't capable of supporting the current team, they'll never see the light of day when it comes to an expansion team. So you might as well drop that daydream as an alternative. It will never happen.

We either keep our team, or we'll never have another team. Period!!!!!!! By the way, do you know why Kansas City lost the team? Because they had a fan base that was in love with the Chiefs and Royals. The Kings were an afterthought. One of the same reasons St. Louis, my home town lost the Hawks. Does that sound familar? Don't think for a second that the BOG won't take into consideration the fact that Seattle has the Seahawks and the Mariners, which is part of the reason for the Sonics departure in the first place. People only have so much money to spend on such things. The Kings are the only show in town. They command the market. Right now, the only thing lacking is the product, and new ownership would take care of that problem.

Right now, all of us have our eye on a prize. Only one prize. The Kings! We don't want to hear about starting over with an expansion team, which isn't likely to happen anyway. I'm not in the mood for a defeatist attitude, and thats what an expansion team would be. So I'm begging you, drop it, because frankly, your starting to irritate me.
Click to expand...

OP here- I was planning on not showing myself around this thread after all the negative blow-back but I feel bad for all the crap butteredbiscuits is getting.

Here's my point: if the BOG nixes the deal, you know what happens? THE MALOOFS KEEP THE TEAM. There is no guarantee that they won't go back to running this franchise in the ground, cutting costs and ruining the basketball product for another five years, just like they have the last five years. Allowing the deal to go through and SIMULTANEOUSLY giving Sacramento a new Kings team avoids this problems.

I was curious to gauge what the reaction would be to this- obviously overwhelmingly negative. But my point was never that we SHOULD let the Kings go and get a new team, but that WE MIGHT HAVE TO if the alternative is being stuck with the Maloofs, trying to bleed this franchise and the NBA for as long as possible like the leeches they are until they finally get their way (i.e., screwing over the city of Sacramento completely).

Of course the response is, "The Maloofs will HAVE to sell! They already sold once! The price is set!" No, they don't have to sell. They are stubborn, unpredictable, illogical cokeheads. But yes, I 100% agree with every poster in this thread saying we should keep THIS FRANCHISE. I just wanted to point out the possible scenario of being stuck with the Maloofs and their refusal to commit to putting together a quality product, and also point out that expansion might be a nuclear-option alternative to forcing the Maloofs out of the league while keeping the NBA in Sacramento.
 
captain bill said:
OP here- I was planning on not showing myself around this thread after all the negative blow-back but I feel bad for all the crap butteredbiscuits is getting.

Here's my point: if the BOG nixes the deal, you know what happens? THE MALOOFS KEEP THE TEAM. There is no guarantee that they won't go back to running this franchise in the ground, cutting costs and ruining the basketball product for another five years, just like they have the last five years. Allowing the deal to go through and SIMULTANEOUSLY giving Sacramento a new Kings team avoids this problems.

I was curious to gauge what the reaction would be to this- obviously overwhelmingly negative. But my point was never that we SHOULD let the Kings go and get a new team, but that WE MIGHT HAVE TO if the alternative is being stuck with the Maloofs, trying to bleed this franchise and the NBA for as long as possible like the leeches they are until they finally get their way (i.e., screwing over the city of Sacramento completely).

Of course the response is, "The Maloofs will HAVE to sell! They already sold once! The price is set!" No, they don't have to sell. They are stubborn, unpredictable, illogical cokeheads. But yes, I 100% agree with every poster in this thread saying we should keep THIS FRANCHISE. I just wanted to point out the possible scenario of being stuck with the Maloofs and their refusal to commit to putting together a quality product, and also point out that expansion might be a nuclear-option alternative to forcing the Maloofs out of the league while keeping the NBA in Sacramento.
Click to expand...

I can guarantee you that Maloofs are finished. They have set their price and even if the NBA blocked the sale to Seattle, there is no way that Maloofs are back as owners next season. They are finished. In worst case scenario, NBA will take ownership of the team until they find the right ownership group and pay Maloofs their $340 million to leave the NBA for good. Its the in "best interest of the league" clause that can easily be activated here because NBA provided Maloofs with alternative (sell to Burkle/Mastrov) and they chose not to, so NBA pays them out and takes over from here.

Whatever course this takes, once thing is for certain, the Maloofs are finished in the NBA regardless of whether they sell to Hansen, Sacramento ownership group or the NBA. They will not be in the NBA next season, guaranteed!
 
captain bill said:
Here's my point: if the BOG nixes the deal, you know what happens? THE MALOOFS KEEP THE TEAM. There is no guarantee that they won't go back to running this franchise in the ground, cutting costs and ruining the basketball product for another five years, just like they have the last five years.
Click to expand...

They can't afford to keep running the team. They made a cash call for $10 million dollars last summer. That means they had to pay $5.3 million of it out of their personal finances.
 
Section 101 said:
They can't afford to keep running the team. They made a cash call for $10 million dollars last summer. That means they had to pay $5.3 million of it out of their personal finances.
Click to expand...
Not to mention they say they will be losing in the neighborhood of $7 million this year. They have clearly gotten over the psychological barrier of not wanting to let the team go. They know owning the team is not financially realistic for them anymore.
 
captain bill said:
OP here- I was planning on not showing myself around this thread after all the negative blow-back but I feel bad for all the crap butteredbiscuits is getting.
Click to expand...

Take some time and go back and read all of butteredbiscuit's posts. He's been playing a passive-aggressive role for a long time, citing "friends" in high places with tidbits of information that cannot be confirmed. At almost every juncture, he's found a way to make it sound as though he's supporting us while he points out yet once again that we need to prepare for the worst. It gets irritating after a while.

And you're wrong about the whole Maloof situation. They have put the team up for sale and accepted a bona fide offer. At this point, it's up to the league not the Maloofs. The league can reject the sale to Seattle and then accept a different sale, provided the net to the Maloofs is the same. The Maloofs are finished.
 
butteredbiscuit said:
Yes I do understand. The LA Rams! I completely understand. I wont mentioned that the owners wife took the husband out on a boat, well she is the owner now.

I know you didnt want to hear it but I am trying to bring out a positive out of it. Let me tell you why. I got a message from a friend that told me that the NBA was going to vote on All-Star Weekend on the approving of the Maloofs and Hansen deal. Now I am going to snoop around and see if there is anything on this but usually he is right on the money. But I do want to backtract something about Ellison though. He also said that Ellison decided not to get into the bidding because he said that it is not worth spending $525 million for the Kings. But he would if everything else fails between Burkle-Mastov, he would get into it. But next week, KJ will come out with Burkle and Mastrov on a press conference. They should have a matching offer done by then.

But after this post, I wont bring up expansion anymore but you know how I feel about it if the "Real" Kings have to abide by the agreement they have with the Hansen's. Would you still support the new team if that was the case?
Click to expand...

I have been reading your posts for the last couple weeks, and sir, you are so full of crap I can smell it from here. You're a Laker fan, we get it, but your trolling leaves much to be desired. Nothing you have ever said here has been accurate.
 
captain bill said:
OP here- I was planning on not showing myself around this thread after all the negative blow-back but I feel bad for all the crap butteredbiscuits is getting.

Here's my point: if the BOG nixes the deal, you know what happens? THE MALOOFS KEEP THE TEAM. There is no guarantee that they won't go back to running this franchise in the ground, cutting costs and ruining the basketball product for another five years, just like they have the last five years. Allowing the deal to go through and SIMULTANEOUSLY giving Sacramento a new Kings team avoids this problems.

I was curious to gauge what the reaction would be to this- obviously overwhelmingly negative. But my point was never that we SHOULD let the Kings go and get a new team, but that WE MIGHT HAVE TO if the alternative is being stuck with the Maloofs, trying to bleed this franchise and the NBA for as long as possible like the leeches they are until they finally get their way (i.e., screwing over the city of Sacramento completely).

Of course the response is, "The Maloofs will HAVE to sell! They already sold once! The price is set!" No, they don't have to sell. They are stubborn, unpredictable, illogical cokeheads. But yes, I 100% agree with every poster in this thread saying we should keep THIS FRANCHISE. I just wanted to point out the possible scenario of being stuck with the Maloofs and their refusal to commit to putting together a quality product, and also point out that expansion might be a nuclear-option alternative to forcing the Maloofs out of the league while keeping the NBA in Sacramento.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to thank you
 
captain bill said:
OP here- I was planning on not showing myself around this thread after all the negative blow-back but I feel bad for all the crap butteredbiscuits is getting.

Here's my point: if the BOG nixes the deal, you know what happens? THE MALOOFS KEEP THE TEAM. There is no guarantee that they won't go back to running this franchise in the ground, cutting costs and ruining the basketball product for another five years, just like they have the last five years. Allowing the deal to go through and SIMULTANEOUSLY giving Sacramento a new Kings team avoids this problems.

I was curious to gauge what the reaction would be to this- obviously overwhelmingly negative. But my point was never that we SHOULD let the Kings go and get a new team, but that WE MIGHT HAVE TO if the alternative is being stuck with the Maloofs, trying to bleed this franchise and the NBA for as long as possible like the leeches they are until they finally get their way (i.e., screwing over the city of Sacramento completely).

Of course the response is, "The Maloofs will HAVE to sell! They already sold once! The price is set!" No, they don't have to sell. They are stubborn, unpredictable, illogical cokeheads. But yes, I 100% agree with every poster in this thread saying we should keep THIS FRANCHISE. I just wanted to point out the possible scenario of being stuck with the Maloofs and their refusal to commit to putting together a quality product, and also point out that expansion might be a nuclear-option alternative to forcing the Maloofs out of the league while keeping the NBA in Sacramento.
Click to expand...



Sacramento fans have begun to take on aspects of battered woman syndrome, call it battered fan syndrome, with delusions about the power and omnipotence of their abuser. The Maloofs are weak. the NBA is strong. The NBA has in its bylaws the right to vote the Maloofs right out of the league. The Maloofs desperately need money and a fresh start, and the NBA is no longer interested in them in the least, especially not in the face of multiple billionaires bidding on the franchise.

The Maloofs are done. This is not even a question at this point. Nor do they want it there to be. They just want their money. Maybe they would like some revenge with it, but in the end the money is what trumps, and they are greedy and desperate. As long as they are paid of, they'll go with no more than lip service protests. Maybe not even that if the NBA dangles the "if you be good little boys one day we might even let you back into the club again" carrot.
 
The BoG can vote down a sale to Hansen/Seattle. It is also true that they cannot force the Maloofs to take a Sacramento offer. However, if the net money to the Maloofs is the same or more, I can't see why they wouldn't take it at this point. Unless they are more stupid than I think. Which would be hard to accomplish in real life. I have no illusions, though. This is an uphill battle for Sacramento. I'm glad we have KJ leading the charge, though.
 
I have no inside info on the BOG, but the NBA has already been jerked around by the Maloofs once with the Arena deal. If the NBA says no to Seattle and the Maloofs decide, as if by whim, not to sell to a Sacto buyer for comparable consideration, I find it hard to believe that the NBA wouldn't make it extremely uncomfortable for the Maloofs to continue with the status quo. I think they'd use every lever at their disposal to force the Maloofs to sell. Also, I find it hard to believe that once George and the mother have the whif of $$$ from the potential sale of the Kings to Seattle that they would do an about-face if there was a Sacto buyer offering the same cash. The Maloofs are going to have to sell; it's just a question of who.
 
Kingster said:
I have no inside info on the BOG, but the NBA has already been jerked around by the Maloofs once with the Arena deal. If the NBA says no to Seattle and the Maloofs decide, as if by whim, not to sell to a Sacto buyer for comparable consideration, I find it hard to believe that the NBA wouldn't make it extremely uncomfortable for the Maloofs to continue with the status quo. I think they'd use every lever at their disposal to force the Maloofs to sell. Also, I find it hard to believe that once George and the mother have the whif of $$$ from the potential sale of the Kings to Seattle that they would do an about-face if there was a Sacto buyer offering the same cash. The Maloofs are going to have to sell; it's just a question of who.
Click to expand...
I agree with this pretty much, I was just pointing out that I don't think the league can legally force a sale. But I don't think the Maloofs want to have to see Stern if they said no to a Sacramento buyer. Altho, I imagine the Maloofs are pretty much pariahs with Stern and the other owners at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top