OT: NBA Sacramento sale moves along
View Single Post
01-27-2013, 01:52 AM
Join Date: Jan 2012
Originally Posted by
Memphis was sold to a Northern Californian. Nothing has really changed with their potential to be relocated except who may initiate it. Them and the Bucks have short-term lease agreements and those normally have some out clause. The Grizzlies one can be bought out at any time.
And if all teams are in a good place, expansion may be used. With Stern, I really doubt he will leave as commissioner without something in place to give Seattle a team and expansion is likely a last resort for him but I don't doubt he'll use it if necessary.
Maybe but going back to Seattle at the expense of Sacramento doesn't do Stern any favors and make his legacy any better.
But I gotta say that's an awesome typo. lol
It wouldn't be good for his legacy regardless of which team ends up being relocated to Seattle that the issue where the only option to get a team is relocation.
In a perfect world sonics would have stayed and the OKC would have gotten the hornets. I just don't see expansion happening anytime soon. Problem is what money the owners may get via expansion fee is negated by how much they would lose by spitting the pie 31 times.
The league is in a tough position here. They would like to see the maloofs out as NBA owners but also would like to have hansen/balmer as owners and have the seattle market back in the NBA.
If NBA rejects Hansen's sale and the kings stay, the leagues only hope is that the maloofs change their mind and sell locally. Kings fans deserve better owners imo.
If the maloofs decide to keep the team then what after NBA rejects the sale. Do we hope they decide to be reasonable and work for a new arena locally or are they gonna try again to relocate.
Like i said Kings fans deserve better owners so question is would it be better in the long term for the city that the kings leave for Seattle so Sacramento gets a future team with better owners?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by gstommylee