The Seattle Times reports that the officials in the Emerald City have been working for eight months on a plan to build a new arena to lure an NBA and NHL team to Seattle. In the story, the Sacramento Kings are mentioned as a target.
There has been a good deal of attention on this topic over the weekend. But setting aside the Seattle issue, most of the coverage of the city's bid for a new arena is ignoring two things.
1. Sacramento is weeks away from an up-or-down vote on privatizing the operation of downtown parking facilities to aid in the funding of a new downtown entertainment and sports complex, and has been negotiating with arena megalords AEG and the NBA for months. The NBA has invested itself in this solution, and if it is approved in the next few months by Sacramento's elected officials, the league will not turn its back on the city and let the Maloofs take our team away.
2. Seattle is not the only city with a desire to take in an NBA team.
Look, if this current arena plan creeping towards the desks of the City Council fails, the Kings will almost certainly leave. Whether that be Seattle, Kansas City, Anaheim, Louisville, Vegas, Chicago, Saskatoon, London or Modesto -- it doesn't matter. The team will almost certainly be gone. It's not fair, but it's the reality right now. David Stern feels as if he has given Sacramento one last chance, and he made no secret of that last May. The Maloofs' damned press release announced they'd keep our team in Sacramento for 2011-12 even quoted one of the brothers saying that Stern had assured them that they'd receive a green light to move our team if a funding plan didn't come together by March.
That Seattle might be ready to receive a team in 2012 or 2013 is irrelevant to us. Anaheim's ready. K.C. is ready. Louisville's ready. Hell, Chicago is ready. Seattle's just another city on that list, the list of cities that wants a team and sees its best, most immediate opportunity in Sacramento. If KJ finishes the job and we get this funding plan done, our Kings are staying in Sacramento. We control our own destiny here.
When I say "we," I mean it. Let's fill up the arena on Thursday for TNT Night, stay loud and follow up at City Council on February 14.
3 recs | 88 comments
Perfectly said
We get an arena, and the team stays. We don’t, they leave. Simple as that.
Once again would like to remind people to try to make it out to the Feb. 14th City Council meeting. Bring your special someone for Valentine’s day!
Aykis16 - February 5, 2012
Well, if we do lose the Kings I wouldn't mind them moving to Seattle
Give them a team back, I don’t hate Seattle, and it wouldn’t be too difficult to fly up a weekend and watch a game.
that said, HERE WE STAY!!
HeuristicLineup - February 5, 2012
I honestly don't care where they move.
If the team is gone, i am not longer a fan. I am a fan of the Sacramento Kings, not the Anaheim/Seattle/Vegas Royals.
X_47 - February 5, 2012
My feelings exactly
KingsFanInPortland - February 5, 2012 via mobile
If the Kings move,
I’m done w/the NBA. W/the exception of my rooting interest in the Kings, the NHL is a better product than the NBA to me.
richie88 - February 5, 2012
The NHL is pretty rough right now too, though
tomroadrunner - February 6, 2012
And when Reke, DMC, and IT roll into the playoffs
will you feel the same way?
Shizzo - February 7, 2012
Yeah Seattle is way too far out
Maybe the Hornets, Pacers, or Bucks
wallywagon11 - February 5, 2012
Let’s go Saskatoon Wheat Kings!
kingsoftheboxscore - February 5, 2012
Yeah... If the Kings leave, I become a full on clips fan.
I can watch them get under the #Fakeshows skin.
HarveySpecter - February 5, 2012 via Android app
BUT HERE WE STAY.
HarveySpecter - February 5, 2012 via Android app
Any city trying to take the Kings is enemy territory in my books
and I fully support any disaster that the city faces.
rmgordon4 - February 5, 2012
really?
wallywagon11 - February 5, 2012
That's enough of that.
Tom Ziller - February 5, 2012
I guess sarcasm just doesn't exist anymore
sigh…
rmgordon4 - February 5, 2012
You my friend need to brush up on your sarcasm skills.
Because that my friend, was bluntly devoid of humor.
iashwash - February 5, 2012
The guy tried to make a joke and most people didn't like it.
Humor is subjective and we all like different things.
I don’t think the guy actually means any harm to the City of Seattle. People are being kind of hard on him.
Let’s all keep in mind that dry delivery, sarcasm and tone all can be easily lost in text form. It was a dark joke meant to show love for keeping the Kings in Sac, not a death wish on the Emerald City.
PhutureKings - February 6, 2012
Please do tell how that was irony
wallywagon11 - February 5, 2012
I don't think irony is a prerequisite for humor but to each his own.
The humor was supposed to be the the extreme and unrealistic nature of the statement, which I believe is within the the guidelines defined as sarcasm. I was hoping that people would keep in mind that no person with an ounce of morality would wish such a thing upon fellow human beings or any cities infrastructure. I see the impending doom of Mount Rainier erupting in the next few thousand years touched a nerve with some people. I am glad Kings fans are showing so much concern for our brothers up north that they will condemn such unintentional and unrealistic overstatements.
rmgordon4 - February 6, 2012
your first mistake was thinking I was condemning the statement or thought you were serious
wallywagon11 - February 6, 2012
in truth I just thought it was an unfunny joke
and noticed it wasn’t sarchasm, just a joke that went wrong. That’s it. I can’t pretend I haven’t done the same, especially here.
wallywagon11 - February 6, 2012
My bad then
I completely mistook what you were saying and got too defensive. Its perfectly fine, obviously that you don’t think what I said was funny, I was defending it because I wasn’t trying to say anything over the line.
rmgordon4 - February 9, 2012
...
Mike Garza - February 5, 2012
this confuses me
because aren’t the wheels being peddled in the forward motion?
wallywagon11 - February 6, 2012
Depends on whether you're using the seat to protect your boys or not
otis29 - February 6, 2012
Yeah, I did a GIS for Unisex Unicycle and came up empty handed.
Mike Garza - February 6, 2012
It may be unpopular
And uncouth, but I fully support irrational hatred of enemies…
athletics68 - February 5, 2012
Totally agree with this.
ExPFCWintergreen - February 5, 2012
Any news on our Sixth Man banner?
HarveySpecter - February 5, 2012 via Android app
It's still not up. But they did send this to me
HeuristicLineup - February 5, 2012
Per Harvey's point: sure would be nice to have that #6 Fan Jersey in the rafters when the big show on Thursday brings the national cameras to town
betweentheeyes - February 5, 2012
Honestly I have not noticed...
if the 6th man banner was up or not as of late. But earlier this summer I know where it is.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/395400_2866994826620_68273937_n.jpg
SacTownMike - February 5, 2012
Huh. Well I'm going to throw a shit-fit if it's not up by the OKC game. That would just be poor, and whoever is in charge of that
Should be busted down to floor-sweeper. There’s really no reason they shouldn’t be up.
HarveySpecter - February 5, 2012
The only won-loss record that counts this season
betweentheeyes - February 5, 2012
As a Sonics fan living in Seattle
I want to speak for the city as a whole when I say taking the kings is the last thing we want to do. We know the pain of losing a team, especially when that team has such a local history. We desperately want a team back though and we know there is no way we’ll get an expansion team but we’d prefer to take a team without any local support or history. The report mentions the kings because they seem to be an available team.
baltergeist - February 5, 2012
That is an understood by most all here, baltergeist.
Most of us see Seattle as a brother-in-arms and we appreciate the support.
betweentheeyes - February 5, 2012
Well said. I agree.
blknblu - February 5, 2012
Too bad you cant buy the Thunder back
KingsFanInPortland - February 5, 2012 via mobile
Fixed it
SharkKings49 - February 5, 2012
It's extremely fair
if the Kings leave as a by-product of not securing a new arena. It’s easy to forget, but the franchise is a privately owned business.
nohops - February 5, 2012
Yes
It is easy to forget that the team is a privately owned business. What also seems to be easy for us to forget is these are millionaires asking for subsidy for their salaries to play a game. It’s a terrible system that never should’ve been started. We allow them to use our emotions against us in business. Doing business with your heart is ALWAYS a bad idea. And my heart WILL break if they leave.
rory_sayer - February 5, 2012
I am in complete agreeement
with your response.
nohops - February 6, 2012
Perfectly said.
I am debating flying from the East Coast to go to the city council meeting. May not be possible, but I want everyone at that table to know what this team means to the identity of Sacramento, and what a new arena means for the community as a whole. GO KINGS and pack the City Council!!!!
KevinSalvadori - February 5, 2012
Kevin...
If you can some how make it out here that would be awesome. I almost flew to NYC when KJ was going to meet with the NBA in April but I already flew out to Philadelphia for the Kings at 76ers game the month before.
Seriously, if you do make it out here please let me know.
SacTownMike - February 5, 2012
I hate the idea, but..
If they move, I’ll be happy with anywhere but Anaheim
avishai - February 5, 2012
Besides, the New Orleans franchise can be had for for $15 mil less according to Forbes
Natomaser - February 5, 2012
In response to your signature:
You say wonk’s etymology is unknown. Having worked for a while in Washington where every legislative assistant is a policy wonk of some sort, I thought the word came from “know” spelled backwards— for those who know something forward and back. That may have just been urban legend, though.
twasserm - February 5, 2012
its a travesty that the NBA can even consider moving any franchise before the mess of the league owned hornets gets resolved. either they need to find a local (N.O.) owner to take over like yesterday, or they need to move THAT team to …what ever city can put together a the best package. but they need to remove the conflict of interest that blew up so embarrassingly this off season.
gaindeyouth - February 6, 2012
What franchise has the NBA considered moving before the mess of the league owned Hornets?
Sure was under the impression it was the Maloofs who were the ones considering the move, not that they were being forced to by the league.
wallywagon11 - February 6, 2012
It may well be KNOW spelled backwards. That sounds entirely likely.
Natomaser - February 6, 2012
It's the blazers that are going to Seattle.
Kevin.S - February 5, 2012
Why you think that
KingsFanInPortland - February 5, 2012 via mobile
Would ALMOST be worth it to read Saucy's column after the Kings announce their move to Seattle.
AnotherStupidSN - February 5, 2012
Though, I suppose it'll be even more epic seeing what he'll say if we build an arena here.
Either way, I’ll miss that silly bastard when this is all over.
AnotherStupidSN - February 5, 2012
I'm going to personally drive to Anaheim to deliver him his pie in the sky
Aykis16 - February 5, 2012
I have a better idea...
let’s fly there together and present him with a Sacramento Kings jersey with his last name on it along with a certificate of a brick with his name on it.
SacTownMike - February 6, 2012
Nice touch!!
I’m not sure what the character limit on the bricks will be – for Atlanta’s Olympic park I believe it was 2 lines up to 20 characters – but, I would love to buy some bricks with the names of the anti-arena folks names followed by some choice words.
markdog333 - February 6, 2012
I'm guessing it wouldn't be a column so much as a suicide note.
Mike Garza - February 5, 2012
I'll be so glad when this is finalized
Obviously because it means we keep the Kings, but also because it will shut these vultures from other cities trying to poach our team up once and for all.
deadenddude - February 5, 2012
Does anyone know to what degree the league and/or the Maloofs have committed to cover the remaining $200 million (roughly) left over if the city moves ahead on a contract to turn over operation of its parking to a private entity (and AEG pays roughly $50 million) ? I have not been able to find any statement by either the NBA or the Maloofs on this issue.
ExPFCWintergreen - February 5, 2012
lol
nobody knows. Pretty sure that would be pretty big news around here if it happened.
wallywagon11 - February 5, 2012
Oops. Obviously mine was a pretty stupid question. I should have realized this.
I guess I was projecting my worries that the Maloofs will issue some friggin “We’re sorry, and really love Sacramento, but simply aren’t interested in paying the lion’s share of the cost of an arena. Like we have consistently indicated since last year, we are interested in being tenants, not owners, of the arena”
ExPFCWintergreen - February 5, 2012
Think about it this way
It appears the NBA is the one negotiating on behalf of the organization. If they feel like the offer is a good one, the owners will have to take it. If they say ‘no’ to the league and Stern then I don’t see them sticking around for too long. But that’s just my personal take on the situation
edm7 - February 5, 2012
This seems right. thank you
ExPFCWintergreen - February 5, 2012
No worries
Just remember this at all times: the ball is completely in Sacramento’s court. If the city moves forward with the financing for this new ESC, the team WILL stay here. If they don’t, they will likely move. Simple as that
edm7 - February 5, 2012
My guess is that Sacramento
will want the Kings to take on as much responsibility as it would have cost them to move to Anaheim.
$100 million or so.
lietothegirls - February 6, 2012
Works in Our Favor
Actually, I think this news helps our cause. For one, it adds a sense of value to having an NBA franchise. When you have an entity that some other city publicly wants, then that adds credibility to the perceived value. Secondly, the fact that a major city that lost an NBA franchise because of a lack of a feasible arena, is now, after the fact, planning on building an arena, only adds to the notion that building is the right thing to do; especially when you still have a team to fill that venue.
Darren King - February 5, 2012
I would love to share your optimism
But I get very nervouse when Iread stories like this:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/nba-338460-sacramento-relocation.html
ExPFCWintergreen - February 5, 2012
so nervous it seems that I can’t even spell out a small declarative sentence.
ExPFCWintergreen - February 5, 2012
And yet not one person...
has replied to that column that is a resident of Anaheim/OC.
SacTownMike - February 6, 2012
Just remember
that it’s written by Saucy, who’s had to already backtrack once. I’d say the column is just him projecting his desire for an NBA team (a desire that won’t be fulfilled by the Kings).
richie88 - February 6, 2012
Seattle would be far more preferable to Anaheim...
But both are pitifully bad compromises to getting a new Sac arena…
athletics68 - February 5, 2012
Sacramento is the only preferable destination.
VenomySnicket - February 6, 2012
Agreed
If they leave, I could really care less where they go. I won’t be following the NBA with anything but a very casual interest.
section214 - February 6, 2012
Sacramento
would still make a great major league baseball destination, if the Delta Breeze cooperates…
nohops - February 6, 2012
Don’t forget about San Jose. Right now, the fate of the team is in the hands of Sacramento’s elected officials, which is really the best case scenario.
Carl - February 6, 2012
No chance for San Jose IMO. They are already in the process with the A’s move there, and no way they could give a sweetheart deal to them with Warriors already down there
Widowwolf - February 6, 2012
Especially with brand new owners for the Dubs
otis29 - February 6, 2012
The Writer Is Completely Wrong
Kansas City, Louisville, Anaheim were all rumored but the NBA has always said that wont happen without an NBA ready arena. None of those cities have an NBA arena in place including Anaheim. None of these cities is ready. The closest is Seattle and they’d still approval among other things to occupy Key Arena.
kuhreem - February 6, 2012 via mobile
Louisville and Anaheim both would be NBA ready by next season.
Their arena situations aren’t much different from Oklahamo’s a few years ago.
wallywagon11 - February 6, 2012
sorry
Kansas City too (just with Kansas City, AEG doesn’t really have any incentive to bring another tenant in)
wallywagon11 - February 6, 2012
Beat me to it
3 of those cities have NBA ready arenas and Seattle is looking like they might have 2 soon (since Key Arena is still NBA ready as a temp venue). It really does come down to KJ making this arena happen in Sac. If he does, and soon, the team stays, if not, they’re gone. There are too many cities waiting in the wings that do have modern NBA capable arenas ready to go and the Maloof’s are too broke and too desperate to hang around otherwise.
athletics68 - February 6, 2012
Seattle does not have 2.
They have a long ways to go because as far as I could tell that hedge manager in Seattle didn’t say he was paying for it and if he ain’t good luck getting around that new law up in Seattle.
wallywagon11 - February 6, 2012
We Win, Seattle Wins, In the End, IMHO
One of the differences between these various city options however, is that Stern has made it clear that Seattle will get another shot, as soon as a viable arena plan is in place. That may be a relocated team, or perhaps an expansion opportunity like was offered Charlotte when the owner took his team to New Orleans. But, all that said, its because Stern really regrets the Seattle move that he will do everything within his power to support our team in Sac – which has a proven history of NBA fan support. And like others have said, if the council moves forward with the plan, then its all good. We keep our team. And there’s a very good chance that Seattle gets theirs too.
Darren King - February 6, 2012
well minus who is going to come up with $400 plus million dollars
this doesn’t mean a whole lot
wallywagon11 - February 6, 2012
I don't see another expansion team in the near future...
With so many small market teams losing money (maybe fixed with new CBA), and the high turnover rate of NBA ownership (9 new owners in 2+ seasons), I just dont see the sustainability of being able to add more teams.
Wonderchild - February 6, 2012
One Way or the Other
Marks my words, if Seattle gets a new arena they WILL get a team. Either through moving one. Or through expansion. Stern has already pretty much guaranteed that.
Darren King - February 6, 2012
link for the guarantee?
wallywagon11 - February 6, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Sactown Royalty to post a comment.