Why Not an Expansion Team in Sacramento?

[captain bill]

Isn't the logical solution to this mess to let the Kings be sold and become the Sonics, while immediately awarding Sacramento an expansion team to become the Kings?

I know it's weird, but it is 100% in the league's power to do so. Blocking a sale and risking a massive legal battle (not to mention the PR nightmare of the NBA once again screwing Seattle) seems like a long shot. But what DOES NOT seem like a long shot is getting an ownership group, arena deal, and league support in Sacramento.

Lot's of people are saying block the move and award Seattle an expansion team, but this seems a lot cleaner, at least in terms of (1) not gambling on the BOG blocking a Seattle move and (2) not risking a protracted legal battle with the Seattle ownership group (because win or lose I think it would be a mess that everyone would rather avoid).

[Capt. Factorial]

No.

The logical solution is to have a local buyer purchase the Kings and to grant Seattle an expansion team to begin when their arena is complete. End of story.

[Brac-o-matic]

No.

The logical solution is to have a local buyer purchase the Kings and to grant Seattle an expansion team to begin when their arena is complete. End of story.

This is the solution both sides want. Neither would be happy the other way.

[slugking50]

1. Because I don't want one.

2. Because I don't see expansion, Only contraction in the NBA's future.

[captain bill]

There are basically only two serious options to keeping the (current) Kings in Sacramento: BOG blocking the sale or the Hansen group voluntarily agreeing to nullify the sale and get an expansion team.

I'm in favor of either but what people are missing on this equation is that both moves require Maloof cooperation. BOG stopping the sale means the Kings still belong to the Maloofs- and we're back to square one. Voluntary agreement with Hansen would require a simultaneous sale of the Kings BY THE MALOOFS to a local group.

This option- letting the sale go through and granting Burkle/Mastrov an expansion team- bypasses the Maloofs entirely. If we've learned anything over the last few years it's that bringing the Maloofs back to the table is going to end badly for everyone. And any option involving forcing their hands (including the right of first refusal) would lead to a legal fight that we're not certain to win.

This isn't ideal but if the NBA agrees, it's a certainty. The Maloofs are out the door. The Sonics are back in the NBA. Sacramento keeps the Kings, albeit we lose our entire roster (I'm assuming Burk-strov would clean house either way). And there is ZERO risk of a legal battle or getting maloofed again.

[VF21]

There are basically only two serious options to keeping the (current) Kings in Sacramento: BOG blocking the sale or the Hansen group voluntarily agreeing to nullify the sale and get an expansion team.

I'm in favor of either but what people are missing on this equation is that both moves require Maloof cooperation. BOG stopping the sale means the Kings still belong to the Maloofs- and we're back to square one. Voluntary agreement with Hansen would require a simultaneous sale of the Kings BY THE MALOOFS to a local group.

This option- letting the sale go through and granting Burkle/Mastrov an expansion team- bypasses the Maloofs entirely. If we've learned anything over the last few years it's that bringing the Maloofs back to the table is going to end badly for everyone. And any option involving forcing their hands (including the right of first refusal) would lead to a legal fight that we're not certain to win.

This isn't ideal but if the NBA agrees, it's a certainty. The Maloofs are out the door. The Sonics are back in the NBA. Sacramento keeps the Kings, albeit we lose our entire roster (I'm assuming Burk-strov would clean house either way). And there is ZERO risk of a legal battle or getting maloofed again.

Actually, by entering into a binding agreement to sell the team, the Maloofs have pretty much taken themselves out of the equation. David Stern has given KJ the green light to take a legitimate offer directly to the league, totally bypassing the Maloofs. This has been discussed almost ad nauseum in some of the "latest rumor" threads.

Sacramento fans have stuck by the Kings through thick and thin. The idea of letting them walk so we can start all over again just doesn't ring true with me, and I suspect the vast majority of fans who are still fans. Let Seattle have the expansion team. They don't have any kind of vested interest in our players so why should they get them?

I might be in the minority but I don't feel much sympathy for the people of Seattle and I don't think the BoG is necessarily all warm and fuzzy about giving them our franchise if any other kind of option is available. Seattle had two years after the change of ownership to get their act together and put forth an arena proposal. They didn't get it done. WE DID. I fail to see how doing the right thing can get us to lose our team and I certainly will not readily accept the promise of an expansion team at some point down the road. They won't be our Kings. Why should we have to go through what Seattle did when, as I said, we did everything right and they did everything wrong?

Let them have the expansion team.

EDIT: Your identification of the only two options isn't quite right. The BoG can block the sale of the Kings TO SEATTLE but approve a sale to a different group, thus giving the Maloofs what they asked for.

[Section 101]

I will not support an expansion team financially. I bet a lot of the remaining season ticket holders feel the same.

What you are missing is the Maloofs are broke and cannot continue to own the team. They are having to pay the bills from their personal accounts.

[Warhawk]

No.

The logical solution is to have a local buyer purchase the Kings and to grant Seattle an expansion team to begin when their arena is complete. End of story.

This. Agreed 100%. Seattle can have an expansion team to replace the one they lost when they wouldn't help with an arena. We have done what was asked, no reason to punish Sacramento.

[funkykingston]

If expansion were in the cards, Hansen/Ballmer wouldn't be trying to buy the Kings. I don't think it's as likely as many believe. Yes, new NBA arenas in both Sacramento and Seattle seem like a very good thing and definitely have their positives, but it also means further diluting the talent pool, unbalanced divisions (I have doubts about the NBA adding one team, let alone two), less of a share of TV money for each team etc.

Both cities getting a team is a nice sentiment but the league has seemed very lukewarm on the notion of expansion. So as of right now the reality is that there is ONE team and two cities meaning someone wins and someone loses.

As a side note, the Maloofs are done in the NBA. They will either sell to Hansen/Ballmer or sell to Burkle/Mastrov. There is exactly zero chance that if the Seattle sale were blocked by the BOG that the NBA would allow the Maloofs to refuse the local sale and remain as owners.

[Chupacabra]

Lock it up! I HATE defeatist attitudes and i dont want other readers to get the wrong idea.

[pdxKingsFan]

If you're going to expand then you give the expansion team to the market without one. We've stood by this team for a lot more down years than great ones (and how great they were), we deserve to keep them. It's possible a change in ownership can pay immediate dividends on the court and our talent can bloom. I don't want to see that in another city, last of all Seattle.

I haven't lived in Sacramento going on 20 years now, I've stood by the Kings but I just don't think I would root for Sacramento Team B. I think I'd just quit the NBA.

[pshn80]

Why an expansion team? I like what we have. Why would I change it?

[Jose]

Isn't the logical solution to this mess to let the Kings be sold and become the Sonics, while immediately awarding Sacramento an expansion team to become the Kings?

I think this is the worse case scenario. People freaked out when I brought this up a few weeks ago. As much as people here hate this idea, it's still better than having no team at all.

Regardless, wherever the Kings end after this ownership change, the team will be much like an expansion team. Except in worse financial shape (bad contracts, lots of debt, huge rebuild incoming). I expect the new owners to clean house, bring in a new GM, new coaching staff, waive or release players and be very active in trading and cleaning up the roster.

The only difference between this team after the sale and an expansion team will be the fans' attachment to some of the players. And the frustration of losing some players with tremendous potential and some fan favorites. No doubt it will cost the organization some fans (and we can hardly afford to lose any more).

[pdxKingsFan]

The team will have Cousins who could be the defining big man of his era when he matures. Maybe not as great a shape as OKC was at the time they moved, but a coaching change and some roster moves will clean the team up in no time. The team should be a lot more attractive to free agents once ownership has settled, the cheap/broke Maloofs are out, a new Arena is coming, etc... I'd rather have the team I've loved for close to 30 years than some new team, even if they keep the naming rights and history.

[funkykingston]

The team will have Cousins who could be the defining big man of his era when he matures. Maybe not as great a shape as OKC was at the time they moved, but a coaching change and some roster moves will clean the team up in no time. The team should be a lot more attractive to free agents once ownership has settled, the cheap/broke Maloofs are out, a new Arena is coming, etc... I'd rather have the team I've loved for close to 30 years than some new team, even if they keep the naming rights and history.

There's a simpler argument which is that the Kings currently have more talent than an expansion team and the new ownership group (whether Hansen/Ballmer or Mastrov/Burkle) will have TWO years to make positive changes before the hypothetical expansion team starts play. And obviously it also means actually having a team to root for during those two years.

But again, this is idle talk that I don't think jibes with the reality of the situation.

I don't know what the odds are that Seattle could be granted an expansion team if they don't get the Kings. I personally don't think they are all that high. But I think the odds that the NBA allows the Kings to move to Seattle and then turns around and awards Sacramento an expansion team to start play in a couple years are 0.001%. I can't see things shaking out that way. It's keep the Kings or nothing.

[Roaming Gnome]

First and foremost. The Kings NEED to be kept in Sacramento! If there is any justice... Seattle needs to be the city wishing, praying and hoping for an expansion. As VF & others have pointed out, Sac has done everything needed to keep the team! It's amazing how many don't know about the Maloofs backing out of a "done deal" on a brand new arena. This side of the story has been pretty neglected. A lot of my fellow posters on Pacers Digest (our corner of the NBA world) were unaware on Sacramento's efforts. It's just too bad that the Nat'l sports media has neglected to show this going with the "sexy" side of the story focusing on Seattle. I hope the splash made with Burkle and Mastrov is a big one that attracts BIG TIME ATTN. I just personally fear that the BoG will get swept up in the nat'l media hype being peddled by the Hanson group and the Maloofs. Control the media... control perception of the situation.

As far as this talk of expansion... As a fan of another association squad, I sure don't want to see the league expand once again. I personally feel 30 teams in the league are too many when there are so few "difference maker" type players in the league. I have a hard time believing IF the league were to expand... it would just go with 1 team. I'd fully expect them to expand with 2 teams to even things out. This would be like turning on a fire hose to an already watered down product.

[Bricklayer]

It makes no sense at all to wipe a 70 year old franchise off the map, deliver a gut punch to a different fanbase, and then ask them to come out and pretend a new expansion team is their old team in a few years. Meanwhile walking off with a player who could be the best big of his generation -- what is that, now like basically a forced trade of a star out of a small market?

The Seattle fans have already been hurt, their franchise has already been put on hiatus. Fixing that by doing the same thing to another city and fans makes no sense at all. If Seattle gets the Kings or an expansion franchise it doesn't matter much to them. The way they are planning on gutting the Kings it might as well be an expansion franchise anyway. They are just spending $525mil for the right to have a team, not the right to have the Kings. But the Kings, as in this franchise, this organization, these players, do very much matter to Sacramento.

[Fear the Putin]

Here's a thought:

We have new owners in the wings, as well as owners who are ready to build a new arena. Prior to this fiasco, we had an arena that was just about ready to go if it weren't for some broke, slimy owners.
Seattle couldn't get their **** together, we did.

So, give Seattle whatever you want, but our Kings stay here.

[Rockmeister]

I don't understand why people would even think about saying we should let Seattle buy the Kings and WE get an expansion team. That to me does not make any logical sense at all.

[pdxKingsFan]

I don't think the NBA should expand but if Seattle can get 525 million together I'm sure the NBA would take it. Then the price is set for team 32, if they want to go that way.