I'm not sure if this question has been raised before, but would the Sacramento Kings face legal hurdles from the NHL's L.A. Kings for such a move? While the team would probably be named the Anaheim Kings, the L.A. Kings could entertain legal proceedings against the Ducks and their owners for creating confusion in the marketplace. This could make for interesting NHL owners' meetings.

They would probably just sidestep those "hurdles" by renaming themselves when they moved to either the Anaheim Kings or to the Los Angeles/Anaheim Royals going back to their previous name.

In other news it seems that the Maloofs have not provided the Sacramento arena development team with the promised 11 years of paperwork even though we're nearly 25 days into the 90 days the team was supposed to have and they're still waiting... The SF Chronicle among others are seeing this as another sign the team is outta Sac. That and I've heard rumor that the Maloofs quietly approached the other owners about an Anaheim move and have the provisional go ahead to do so...

Yeah, I really didn't expect it to be Anaheim, mostly because there are already two teams in that area. Honda and Staples are only about an hour apart. Even in a metro area this size, 3 teams seems like at least 1 team too many.

But the Maloofs refusal to hand over the documents to Taylor-ICON is really telling. Look, that's a task they could complete in 45 minutes. You burn the word documents, spreadsheets, pdf's, etc to a single CD (I don't even think you'd need a DVD), and you're done.

The latest thing here, the attempt to sell out the Feb 28 game against the Clippers, is a joke. I doubt they'll sell the place out. And even if they do, you'll still see wide swaths of unoccupied seats. It'll be clear to everyone that 3,000 seats won't be filled. And then they'll be right back to the normal 9,500 fans the next game anyway.

There's one thing the fans and the non-fans have in common here: Neither of these groups attend games.

If the Maloofs were serious about staying, they'd have already said they're serious about staying.

As an NBA-loving resident of Los Angeles, I'm certain that the region could support at least one more team. This is especially true in a place like Anaheim, where many people are reluctant to drive to downtown L.A. for Lakers/Clippers games.

The other market that makes sense to me is Vancouver. If you have yet to check it out, look at what Canucks ownership has done up there. They sell out every game and they've done some innovative things with their arena, like installing a high-priced club in an area where seats would normally be at the cheapest prices. To me that's the second-most attractive destination for any team looking to move (like my beloved Bucks, who are probably next).

Ben, I will say that part of the success with the Canucks is related to, well, the success with the Canucks. That's a great hockey team.

It's entirely possible -- even likely, I'd say -- that the Maloofs haven't filed the relocation papers yet because between Seattle, Anaheim, Vegas, KC, Louisville and, yes, Vancouver, they haven't actually made a final decision as to the destination. But it has come out this morning that the mayor of Sacramento (KJ; you might have heard of him) hasn't spoken to the Maloofs in over 4 weeks.

We're supposed to take that as a good sign?

Our KJ -- so good at reading between the lines.

Not.

My copy of the NBA bylaws is at the cleaners - anyone know if they say team owners have to declare where they're asking permission to move to by March 1, or just that they have to ask permission to move in general by then? And if the former, can they get away with later declaring Vancouver to be "North Anaheim"?

@MikeM The Canucks are great, but it's been like 8 years of straight sellouts, and if I recall correctly they've had a couple of stinkers in there.

@Neil This is just going on recollection of the Sonics' move, but I believe the city/arena has to be specified. I'm sure they could do an extension or just break their own rule, but season ticket sales in the spring are such a huge part of an NBA team's business (just received my Bucks invoice last week, in fact) that I can't imagine the league allowing that to be pushed back too far.

Ben, you are correct. The Sonics did specify specifically which arena and city they were moving to. Similarly however I think the Kings will be doing the same thing. They'll declare Anaheim and Honda Center to be their destination. Which makes sense since that is the city and arena they've been having quiet negotiations with and is the only realistic target on such short notice.

Another thing to note, is that IF they do file, they're gone. No team has filed to date as a threat and not gone through with the move. In the very unlikely event the Kings are using this as a threat they'd be the only ones to do so to date.

The Kings are gone if it was not for the provision in the Warriors sale about selling rights to a 2nd team the Maloof's would have headed to San Jose.

Instead Anaheim is a good choice because it has a big population of 3M or so and has the corporate sponsors and fans with $$.

The Clippers were foolish to not move to the OC years ago and instead share with the Lakers in LA.

Now because of Donald Sterling's lunacy SoCal will now have 3 teams but that is OK because the Kings will be now profitable.

The Warriors will now own Sacramento and this opens up huge TV dollars for them for the time being.

San Jose is being saved for a Larry Ellison team once the lockout ends and there will be more than just the Kings relocating.

I see 4 more teams following suit in the next 1-2 years.

I don't know about 4 teams, but we'll definitely see at least the Hornets also making a move. The league won't leave them in New Orleans indefinitely.

Well, things are now moving very quickly:

www.ocregister.com/sports/anaheim-289379-nba-maloofs.html

Neil, this is a done-deal. Okay, not quite, but it's more and more difficult to see how this ends some other way.

Yeah, this will be so good for the Warriors that you wonder if they'd actually be willing to kick in a few bucks to help pay the relocation fees (I'm only half-serious when I say this. Grain of salt, etc.).

@Sid It's nuts to say that the Clips made a mistake staying at the Staples Center. They have one of the sweetest deals in sports. It's darn near impossible to lose money there. Ask the Ducks if the same holds true in Anaheim.

@Dan My sense is that the NBA believes in NOLA. I agree that it's unlikely that the NBA would co-sign on more than 3 teams in the L.A. area, but London has 5 Premiership teams for a reason.

Yes, mainly that London is by far the largest city in that country. We have plenty of cities other than LA that could support an NBA team. Indeed if they weren't in such a hurry I'm sure the Maloofs would be considering or working with another market like Seattle, KC or Vancouver. But given the short timeline they're restricted to do to the late hour and their financial troubles Anaheim is the best option available to them and one of the most lucrative as far as they're concerned if the 100 mil is still on the table from the Ducks owner.