NBA returning to Seattle?

[Throwdown]

Both sides are not willing to pay, one side is talking and putting on a show and the other is actually about it. I don't care how many times its said, expansion isn't happening.

 

[pehawk]

Yeah, I'm with Bill. I think Seattle gets the Kings and Sac gets promise of expansion...IF commitments are met. At this point, it's the only way out of the painted corner Stern and the NBA put themselves in.

 

[chris98251]

Well on paper since the Sac money hasn't been fettered out yet we have two groups that are getting close to paying NFL franchise money for an NBA team. The NBA looking at these two groups and having to be saying how the hell do we turn down a half a billion dollar ownership offer and new stadium.

To get out of this with little more then a bloody nose the NBA has to set up something to satisfy both groups and fans. They did not want to have a bidding war and it's turning into that, they have politicians using this as a platform to speak on and in KJ's case work on a election, worst possible situation to have. He won't shut up so not being a legitimate part of the group he is speaking around the gag order.

We have a week to go, I expect more twists and turns, this whole situation going back to losing our Sonics has been like driving the Pacific coast highway with a pregnant passenger who is in labor.

Those on the West Coast that have driven it know what I am referring to, from Washington to California.

 

[Throwdown]

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/13/533982 ... est%20News

Sac group has no plans to match Hansen's offer. Seems to me they don't even wanna truly offer anyway.

 

[The Outfield]

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/13/5339829/sacramento-group-seeking-to-buy.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#mi_rss=Latest%20News

Sac group has no plans to match Hansen's offer. Seems to me they don't even wanna truly offer anyway.

From the article...

The Sacramento contingent seeking to buy the Kings held back Saturday from delivering a counter to an increased bid for the franchise from Seattle, instead portraying the new offer as a move of desperation that is unlikely to sway the NBA's decision on which city will get the franchise.

HAHAHA. If Hansen's move was desperation, then what does that make every single move Sacramento has made?

 

[Throwdown]

Lol it's cute how they spin things down there huh?

 

[Sports Hernia]

Because they know anything they offer is going to be 100's of millions of dollars
Short, and that doesn't even include their new arena! KJ was bluffing all along and is a lousy poker player. Too much false bravado is a sign of a lousy poker player and KJ oozes false bravado!

 

[Sports Hernia]

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/13/5339829/sacramento-group-seeking-to-buy.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#mi_rss=Latest%20News

Sac group has no plans to match Hansen's offer. Seems to me they don't even wanna truly offer anyway.

From the article...

The Sacramento contingent seeking to buy the Kings held back Saturday from delivering a counter to an increased bid for the franchise from Seattle, instead portraying the new offer as a move of desperation that is unlikely to sway the NBA's decision on which city will get the franchise.

HAHAHA. If Hansen's move was desperation, then what does that make every single move Sacramento has made?

Yeah, pretty rich aint it? oh the irony!

 

[The Outfield]

Golden comments on the article too

I'm glad they are not raising their bid. Everyone knows the Seattle group has more money and could raise the bidding up to $1 billion without blinking an eye. The Sacramento ownership group is better for the NBA. If the NBA doesn't add an expansion team, they are foolish.

The wheezing, rasping and coughing you hear are the last gasps of breath from Seattle's dying hopes.

 

[Hawkscanner]

It doesn't make much sense to me to give Seattle an expansion team. If all that's been reported is to be believed, we have a more solid financing plan, an arena that will be completed quicker than Sacramento, and a possible television deal. I think what would happen is Seattle gets the Kings and Sacramento gets a couple years to actually get their stuff sorted out.

Even with all the positive news lately I'm still very anxious about this whole thing. I think I'm going to have to call in sick on the 18th and 19th.

I understand what you're saying there Bill ... but I'm just beginning to wonder about whether or not the league might actually do that. I've followed this story fairly closely since news first broke in December of 2011 about Hansen's desire to build an arena in Seattle. I'd say that in listening to Kevin Calabro on a regular basis that he believes you're correct too.

But ... I'm just starting to wonder whether or not an expansion franchise would be the perfect solution here. Honestly, I'm hoping that it is because as I said, I personally don't want to do the exact same thing to Sacramento that Clay Bennett and OKC did to us.

It sounds like from listening to Calabro, Chris Daniels, and others that Stern sees the Seattle situation and what happened there back in 2008 as a real black mark on his resume ... and that he'd love to find a way to rectify the situation before he retires. And looking at the way that he (and presumably others) are treating this Sacramento situation I'd say that's exactly right. The league has bent over backwards and then some for Sacramento because I believe they honestly don't like relocating teams. They don't want to see the exact same thing that happened to Seattle happen in Sacramento as well. They know that they screwed up with Seattle and they realize that this continual carousel of city hopping is honestly bad for the NBA. So, if the NBA Board of Governors determines that the Sacramento group has a legitimately viable financial plan in place that looks like it's on solid ground ... I'm thinking that they'll want them to stay put.

At the same time though, the NBA most certainly DOES want back in Seattle. The Seattle-Tacoma region is the 12th largest TV Market in the country. The prospect of those kind of dollars alone is very enticing. Additionally, they know that basketball was well supported in Seattle for 41 years -- it's been time tested. And at the end of it all (given all of that) I just can't see the NBA walking away from all of all ... and everything the Hansen/Ballmer group could bring to the league. The arena, the market, and the sheer dollars that those investors have? No way I see the NBA walking away from all of that. That's why (crazy as it sounds) I'm beginning to think that an expansion franchise for Seattle might actually be the perfect solution here.

 

[Throwdown]

It doesn't make much sense to me to give Seattle an expansion team. If all that's been reported is to be believed, we have a more solid financing plan, an arena that will be completed quicker than Sacramento, and a possible television deal. I think what would happen is Seattle gets the Kings and Sacramento gets a couple years to actually get their stuff sorted out.

Even with all the positive news lately I'm still very anxious about this whole thing. I think I'm going to have to call in sick on the 18th and 19th.

I understand what you're saying there Bill ... but I'm just beginning to wonder about whether or not the league might actually do that. I've followed this story fairly closely since news first broke in December of 2011 about Hansen's desire to build an arena in Seattle. I'd say that in listening to Kevin Calabro on a regular basis that he believes you're correct too.

But ... I'm just starting to wonder whether or not an expansion franchise would be the perfect solution here. Honestly, I'm hoping that it is because as I said, I personally don't want to do the exact same thing to Sacramento that Clay Bennett and OKC did to us.

It sounds like from listening to Calabro, Chris Daniels, and others that Stern sees the Seattle situation and what happened there back in 2008 as a real black mark on his resume ... and that he'd love to find a way to rectify the situation before he retires. And looking at the way that he (and presumably others) are treating this Sacramento situation I'd say that's exactly right. The league has bent over backwards and then some for Sacramento because I believe they honestly don't like relocating teams. They don't want to see the exact same thing that happened to Seattle happen in Sacramento as well. They know that they screwed up with Seattle and they realize that this continual carousel of city hopping is honestly bad for the NBA. So, if the NBA Board of Governors determines that the Sacramento group has a legitimately viable financial plan in place that looks like it's on solid ground ... I'm thinking that they'll want them to stay put.

At the same time though, the NBA most certainly DOES want back in Seattle. The Seattle-Tacoma region is the 12th largest TV Market in the country. The prospect of those kind of dollars alone is very enticing. Additionally, they know that basketball was well supported in Seattle for 41 years -- it's been time tested. And at the end of it all (given all of that) I just can't see the NBA walking away from all of all ... and everything the Hansen/Ballmer group could bring to the league. The arena, the market, and the sheer dollars that those investors have? No way I see the NBA walking away from all of that. That's why (crazy as it sounds) I'm beginning to think that an expansion franchise for Seattle might actually be the perfect solution here.

It would be ideal to give us an expansion team, but honestly we're ready NOW, Sacramento? not exactly, I think (and with bias) that the best situation for the league would be to leave the Sacramento market for the time being. Let them figure things out with the promise of expansion (if expansion was promised to anyone) when they do. Kind of like Charlotte/New Orleans and what happened, let the team leave and promise the empty city an expansion when things get figured out. Sacramento's had what 10+ years to figure this stuff out and never did? Maloofs or not, if you're as big of basketball fans as you say you are in the government, surely you would've found a way to make something happened that made the Maloofs & the city comfortable.

Not to mention that in Hansen's presentation (from a source on SI, i can't find the article) that because of where things are in Sacramento, its another year before they can even build, Hansen has applied for the permits to build in November, upon the approval of the purchase by the league.

Seattle's ready now, the time is now for the NBA to make the call on Seattle, Hansen might be in for the long haul, but is the market if they get spurned again?

 

[grizbob]

Don't care how it happens, just want it to happen, and soon :?

 

[pinksheets]

Yeah, I also tend to believe that Sacramento would be the city discussed for expansion. I do not believe, however, that they would be promised or granted expansion. Perhaps there would be some sort of conditional guarantee, as in "you get a shovel in the ground on an arena and come to us with a solidified ownership group and a big ol' check and sure, we'll expand for you guys." Nothing more. Seattle is done, they have a completed arena deal with vetted, detailed financials, they have a stable ownership group that hasn't seen several shakeups during this saga, and as Throwdown said, we are simply much farther along, the land is purchased (not in Sacramento), lawsuits being handled, etc. etc.

Suggesting expansion to Sacramento keeps the pressure on that group and that city to come to the NBA with a legitimate, vetted, binding offer. Now, I will say, I don't think Sacramento would receive expansion in the end. There is far too much wrong with their arena plan (whose corrections would have to come out of the investment group's coffers based on the financial state of that city) and they still clearly have a long ways to go with that ownership group working out who is a part of it, what's their stake, what's their role, etc., as indicated by them not being ready to submit a binding or even a written offer to anyone. There's a lot that can go wrong on Sac's side, as their whole plan is held together by old chewing gum and good intentions. I think if/when the Kings leave Sacramento, the pressure won't be nearly as great moving from the impending move of an existing team to trying to woo the NBA for an expansion, and once details start actually getting hashed out, Sacramento will potentially find the huge public to private transfer of wealth is a bit overzealous and the investment group will realize that the giant over-payment from the city is what made investing in Sacramento so heavily viable. If the Sac group isn't willing to match Hansen here, I also would not expect them to be willing to fork over an expansion fee which would likely be around the same, if not more. I might be wrong, I hope so for Sacramento's sake, but that's just my prediction.

And wow the Maloofs really took the wind out of Sacramento's sails, didn't they? Sacramento was hanging on dearly to the Maloofs not being willing to deal with them at all and using that as an excuse for A) not being prepared (perhaps still valid, but also a result of lack of preparation) and B) why they were running an endaround the current ownership group and going straight to the NBA to discuss their group purchasing the Kings. Well, now the Maloofs have come out and said "Talk to us. Let's make a deal. Let's put pen to paper and get a matching deal in the books so that if the Seattle bid is rejected by the NBA, we can sell to you. We are willing to work with you." And what happens? Sacramento apparently scoffs at the idea. Odd how whenever they are asked to put their money where their mouth is they tend to shut up and/or disappear? They have been given an opportunity to show that they are serious to the BoG and have an actual PSA (albeit a backup) heading into this week and they said "nah, we'll take our chances." No money is going into this on the Sac side. I don't think current owners will look kindly on a city openly rejecting the opportunity to work with an existing ownership group for a team that they would like to purchase, especially when publicly invited to do so.

If you intend to match and need to get a PSA completed with the Maloofs if Seattle is rejected anyways, why not do that right now and strengthen your case greatly? Because, first of all, you have no intention of matching (which is game over) and secondly, you have no desire to get any skin in a game you think you're going to lose.

It's not over, but I feel good. The Sacramento group + KJ are taking a bit of a beating right now for all the reasons I have been laying out for a while now. Never putting a penny down, avoiding easy opportunities to do so to demonstrate commitment, greatly exaggerating their arena plan's viability and time-frame, and sidestepping any direct question with a good ol' "playing to win."

 

[JSeahawks]

So I have a basketball question for Sonics fans that i'm curious about, rather then a politics question. Assuming you get to start next season either way, would you rather inherit the Kings roster, or get an expansion team and start with a brand new roster?

 

[Throwdown]

So I have a basketball question for Sonics fans that i'm curious about, rather then a politics question. Assuming you get to start next season either way, would you rather inherit the Kings roster, or get an expansion team and start with a brand new roster?

Is there really any difference between the two?

 

[drdiags]

So I have a basketball question for Sonics fans that i'm curious about, rather then a politics question. Assuming you get to start next season either way, would you rather inherit the Kings roster, or get an expansion team and start with a brand new roster?

I would rather take an expansion team. That way the history would all be Seattle-based, sort of like the Cleveland Browns part II. Either way it is going to be a test of the fans mettle watching the next gen Sonics getting up to speed.

 

[chris98251]

I think an expansion team would be better, Sac can keep their history intact, we take ours back prior to the Thunder move. We end up bringing in fresh faces, we get an expansion draft I hope and a slotted lotto pick.

Nice thing about the NBA, you have like 14 guys that make up a roster instead of 25 - 60 or so for Baseball and Football.

Everyone gets to walk away happy and looking favorable in the public eye, KJ gets re elected, Stern gets to go out as a savior of basketball in Seattle and Sacramento, the relocation commitee with Bennett in charge on the surface returns the Sonics back to Seattle and can feel he has made peace with us. Fans in both cities get basketball and are happy.

Besides isn't the Kings roster a mess and aren't they in cap hell with hardly and draft picks and problems along those lines anyway.

 

[pinksheets]

If expansion for next year was even possible, I'd take it, but it's not. No earlier than 2014-2015, maybe another season even.

That being said, the Kings roster is trash, but I'd rather have our team have a chance to see if Cousins has any hope in an organization that isn't a circus and to potentially sign and trade Tyreke + not have to worry about any lottery pick restrictions the NBA might want to slap on an expansion team.

 

[GCrow]

If your guranteed the #1 pick in the 2014 draft, then ya expansion wouldn't be a bad time as you'll have your pick between two future MVP's in Andrew Wiggins & Jabari Parker to build around starting off over... DMC and Tyreke Evans :|

 

[Sports Hernia]

If they can't do expansion in Seattle for next season then sorry Sacramento, I'm taking the Kings!
Sooner the Sonics come back, he sooner the new arena gets built, the sooner he NHL team arrives! :th2thumbs: