This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
September 30, 2010
NBA to Sacramento: Drop dead
In the wake of last week's Cal Expo vote to reject a land swap to help fund a Sacramento Kings arena, NBA arena czar John Moag issued an email Tuesday saying the league is done with its arena efforts in that city:
"On the heels of the disappointing — but not surprising — action (or inaction) of the state and Cal Expo board, it is fair to say that the NBA has ceased its activities on the Sacramento arena front. However, we will continue to monitor and respond to the activities and options of others that might reasonably ensure the competitiveness and viability of the Kings' franchise."
Reading between the lines, that certainly sounds like the NBA is trying to send a signal that it's open to relocating the franchise — Moag didn't say "ensure the competitiveness and viability of the Kings' franchise in Sacramento," after all. Though it could also easily be a signal meant to push the Sacremento city council — which will meet October 26 to consider whatever new plan developer Gerry Kamilos can cobble together by then — to approve a new arena. Or maybe Moag is just counting on Sacramento falling victim to one of the classic blunders.
Interestingly, Mayor Kevin Johnson has raised the possibility of renovating Arco Arena as a possibility, but Kings management says they're not interested: "Refurbishing the current Arco Arena is not an option," Kings president of business operations Matina Kolokotronis told the Sacramento Bee. "We need a new facility that can compete within the NBA. Our facility is one of the oldest in the league. We will continue to look at alternative arena solutions in Sacramento."
Two things really caught my eye in that terse NBA comment:
1. The parenthetical "(or inaction)" is clearly an editorial remark indicating displeasure. I think it signals an end to the soft-pedalling approach the league has taken so far. One thing the NBA and the Maloofs have not done yet is make threats, and I think this one parenthetical remark signals that's about to change.
2. Use of the word "viability". Does that mean the NBA might actively consider contraction? It should at least consider that approach, I believe. There are too many teams, and with the level of attendance at Kings games (there's also a large disparity between tickets sold and actual attendance in Sacramento; about 5,000 tickets/game were comps last year) and the fact that there really aren't many relocation alternatives, perhaps the NBA would consider a contraction proposal.
Anyway, a couple of the higher volume fan websites here think the end-game is just about here. I almost think they'd give the Seattle area a try. No, not Seattle itself; I-91 puts a damper on that. But I-91 isn't in effect outside Seattle city limits. I've stopped thinking that would be far-fetched.
Posted by MikeM on September 30, 2010 12:27 PM
I think the Kings are looking at Anaheim, San Jose, Newark & Kansas City in that order as the options of where to relocate too. I think they'll file for relocation March 31st which is the deadline and then they'll give Sacramento, one more year to come up with something or the Kings will be gone. My bet is they move to Anaheim, CA and eventually I think the Milwaukee Bucks will relocate to Newark, NJ. After that the rest of the NBA teams seem to be safe except maybe the Indiana Pacers.
Posted by NBA Relocation on October 3, 2010 12:48 AM
I love the "oldest" argument, it is a never ending game. One arena is always the "oldest" and thus that team needs to hit the taxpayers up.
Posted by Tom on October 4, 2010 12:38 PM
NBA relocation: The Southern California region already has two NBA teams. What makes you believe they will support a third franchise?
Posted by Juan Pardell on October 4, 2010 07:59 PM