Kings to SJ? (unreliable source)

The reality is that Arco II is 21 years old, and the Maloof’s have been complaining about it all decade. They have tried multiple ways to get a new arena, and none of them seem to work right now. The current plan (even though it’s likely to not succeed at this point) is at Cal Expo where the State Fairgrounds are at.

San Jose is a ruse, I suspect, on the part of people in SJ who want a NBA team to call their own. There are multiple problems with this on a number of levels. The Maloof’s are business people; they view the Kings as a business and unless SJ makes them a substantial increase in long term money I don’t see what’s in it for them. SJ would probably, and I say probably, for the Maloof’s to move them into SJ do the following: Pay for a new practice facility, pay the territory rights fees to Cohan, and pay the NBA relocation fee. That’s probably 300 million dollars give or take 25 mil on either side. (I’d bet Cohan would probably get 100 million for the territory rights.) Additionally, now they would have to have a TV deal set up as well. Is that there? Plus, the Maloof’s own Arco II as it stands now, and they own the land (just as important) along with a Practice Facility (on the property next to where Arco II is) that is all theirs.

Unless SJ ponies up a lot of cash, AND UPGRADES their facilities, you can forget getting the Kings.

Anaheim has the same issue, and I don’t think either place (Anaheim or SJ) is that conducive to a winning team beyond a token rivalry that most Bay Area fans don’t give a rat’s ass about. I imagine this would only be worse in Socal. More importantly, and I think a lot of Bay Area fans don’t realize this,I’m not from the Bay. I could care less about any Bay Area rivalry, and so do a lot of local Kings fan who grew up on the team because they WERE the local team. The Bay Area has Cal, Stanford, the Niners and Raiders, the Warriors AND Sharks. Sacramento has the Kings. Which is why the Kings have always had such a staunch following. (Not to mention that a lot of people in Sac do root for the Bay Area teams already.)

Besides, I have no interest in supporting a Bay Area rivalry when I’m from down 80 miles down the road and have heard nothing but snotty and snobby remarks from uppity Bay Area people. Frankly, the moment the Kings move to SJ, I’m done with them. I’m almost done with the A’s (I’ve been a fan since of the A’s since the late 80’s), and I get really tired of the arrogance that the Bay Area is the only place for the A’s. (I wouldn’t mind supporting them if they moved to Vegas honestly. I have never considered the A’s my “local” team but my favorite baseball team that happened to be closer than other teams I could have latched onto.) Especially when over a 100 + history, there STILL has been more time spent in Philly than in Oakland up to this point. Which doesn’t even count the 13 year stop in KC.

I think KC is a bad bet because the Kings would lag behind KU basketball (and Mizzou as well) with the locals, along with the Chiefs and the Royals behind them. There are people in KC, like SJ, that want NBA basketball, but I don’t really think the local’s care that much. It might be something for a year or two, but beyond that I don’t think it will play. KC is pretty much what it is. I think you can chalk up St Louis in this category too.

Vegas periodically gets mentioned, but you can forget that also. They don’t even have an “NBA worthy” arena. Why would the Maloof’s move the Kings to Vegas without a reasonable NBA arena built or even prospects of one being built? Part of the NBA’s big dis-satisfaction with Vegas during the AS 07 festivities was how poor the reception was in Vegas itself. Combine that with poor facilities, and I think the NBA saw a lot of buzzkill in what they had privately saw as their “baby” up to that point.

Now, having said all that, I think the best option is Seattle. There’s a lot of private money here (I live in Seattle), and better there’s still a big market. Unlike KC, the Sonics generally did better over a longer sustained period of time than any other market team in the Seattle area (Mariners, Seahawks, and UW sports). That still resonates, and there will be some kind of attempt to buy a team and move them back up here. It might be the Kings, or some other team (maybe the Hornets). I don’t know. The Maloof’s haven’t publicly ever said (or even really privately intimated it truthfully) that they would sell the team instead of moving it. The reality is that they’ve given the city and the fanbase a few years before they sever their business with the Kings and move on as they did with the Rockets in the 80’s. (Apparently the Maloof’s selling the Rockets was to Charlie Thomas, in 1982, who in turn sold the Rockets to Les Alexander—the current owner—in 1993.)

Either way, the Maloof’s got the Kings pretty cheap all things considered, but they also inherited a lot of debt along with franchise ownership. I don’t think they want to move the Kings because they like the profit potential (tickets were in the top 5 of price for quite a few years earlier in the decade), and because they are one of a few entertainment choices in Sacramento. They know that, and that’s what they targeted the Kings. Until last season, they were making a profit on the team.

Now, what does that mean? I think if they do sell the Kings, it’s because they don’t want to spend all kinds of money to move the team. It’s not in their best interest to do so.

So yeah, you got my long answer. Hope that answers most of the questions.