Possible expansion discussion?

[HndsmCelt]

http://www.nba.com/2013/news/04/12/sacramento-group-kings-offer/index.html

"There will be an additional two days of meetings in New York early next week before the official April 18-19 BOG meeting."

I had not seen this posted yet, but the BOG has added 2 days to their meeting on the front end. Could expansion be up for discussion after all?

 

[KingsFanatic]

http://www.nba.com/2013/news/04/12/sacramento-group-kings-offer/index.html

"There will be an additional two days of meetings in New York early next week before the official April 18-19 BOG meeting."

I had not seen this posted yet, but the BOG has added 2 days to their meeting on the front end. Could expansion be up for discussion after all?

I for one would be totally for an expansion. I mean face it, the Kings are such a mess right now and the idea of starting from scratch with fresh new players doesn't sound like a bad thing.

 

[Agent23]

I for one would be totally for an expansion. I mean face it, the Kings are such a mess right now and the idea of starting from scratch with fresh new players doesn't sound like a bad thing.

Wait, what? I think Seattle would be getting the expansion, not us, lol.

 

[sdballer]

I also think expansion for either side would also be a great solution to this. The league has seemed dead set against it but you'd be filling two great markets with good ownership groups while appeasing both fan bases.

 

[Padrino]

meh. this thread seems without merit to me. stern, silver, et al have repeatedly said that expansion is not on the table right now. though it would be a utopian solution, until the league says otherwise, it's pointless speculation...

 

[VF21]

meh. this thread seems without merit to me. stern, silver, et al have repeatedly said that expansion is not on the table right now. though it would be a utopian solution, until the league says otherwise, it's pointless speculation...

The league has added two days of meetings before the vote so I think there's reason for speculation. If you think it's pointless, you can always just skip ahead to the next thread.

 

[HndsmCelt]

meh. this thread seems without merit to me. stern, silver, et al have repeatedly said that expansion is not on the table right now. though it would be a utopian solution, until the league says otherwise, it's pointless speculation...

Maybe but this is a very fluid situation, and they have to have SOMETHING to talk about for two extra days.

 

[VF21]

And just to clarify - the OP didn't create a thread for this. It was part of another discussion and I moved it to its own thread. So if there's any question about it being thread-worthy, it was an administrative decision.

 

[KingsFanatic]

Agent23, yes, more than likely it would be Seattle. I'm just saying that I wouldn't mind if Sacramento did get an expansion team

 

[VF21]

First, from Tiwtter:

Dave Lack (Fireplug) ‏@DaveLack 4m

Could the increased bids for the Kings be what pushes the owners to finally accept expansion?

Agent23, yes, more than likely it would be Seattle. I'm just saying that I wouldn't mind if Sacramento did get an expansion team

If they go to expansion, they'll give it to Seattle. It makes less than ZERO sense to take the Kings from Sacramento and send them to Seattle. It would, for one thing, negate everything the city council has agreed to and would mean we had to start over again. Without the Kings staying, we don't get the arena deal.

And if Seattle gets the Kings franchise, we do not retain the name or legacy - any more than Seattle did when the Sonics left.

The only fair and logical solution if expansion is considered is for Seattle to get the brand-new team with no legacy. They can then resurrect their Sonics without destroying one of the ABA's original franchises.

 

[annihilator_33]

Bruski just tweeted this a few minutes ago....

Aaron Bruski ‏@aaronbruski 2m

Following reports of increased bids, sources highly skeptical that the NBA is willing to allow a bidding war at this time.

 

[ninjabiscuit]

I think expansion is the best way to go for the league, in spite of indications from Stern to the contrary. I think that they should want Seattle to have a team (just not ours, obviously), and there may not be a better time to make that happen. It would appease both fan bases, and it would take advantage of a group in Seattle that (in my opinion) (a) deserves a team and (b) has the financial wherewithal to make if happen. I say "go Seattle go," personally. It keeps our Kings here and gives the fan base in Seattle what they want.

 

[HndsmCelt]

And just to clarify - the OP didn't create a thread for this. It was part of another discussion and I moved it to its own thread. So if there's any question about it being thread-worthy, it was an administrative decision.

Ahhh.... If I had not been so lazy I might have started a new thread anyway.

 

[Jose]

Hansen gets expansion team for $495M, pulls out of deal and forfeits his $30M.

Sacramento group buys kings with "matching" offer of $311M (net $341 for Maloofs).

Hansen doesn't lose money and gets a team for the $525 he was offering, Maloofs made "whole", Sacramento keeps team while overpaying less, Stern does the right thing for Sac and finally rights the Seattle relocation, everybody wins!

 

[Kingsfan23]

I don't think Seattle needs a team.. They are the 13th largest market and have the Seahawks, Sounders, mariners, UW, Storm and who knows what else. They can't even support the Mariners now, and they are setting records for low attendance. They put forth no political will to keep the team. They don't need a team. With that being said, unfortunately, their group isn't going away, but I think rather than expansion they will have to wait around for the next moving team as I think there is little will for expansion within the top ranks

 

[Jose]

I don't think Seattle needs a team.. They are the 13th largest market and have the Seahawks, Sounders, mariners, UW, Storm and who knows what else. They can't even support the Mariners now, and they are setting records for low attendance. They put forth no political will to keep the team. They don't need a team. With that being said, unfortunately, their group isn't going away, but I think rather than expansion they will have to wait around for the next moving team as I think there is little will for expansion within the top ranks

With $1B on the table (team purchase + arena), the NBA just can't ignore them. They put that kind of money on the table, they're getting a team...

 

[Gary]

After the way they have been acting (saying the Kings are their team ect ect and that if they don't get them then they lose two teams in 6 years ect ect) I don't care if Seattle ever gets a team. They might deserve one, but I really hope the cave people up there make it difficult.

 

[VF21]

After the way they have been acting (saying the Kings are their team ect ect and that if they don't get them then they lose two teams in 6 years ect ect) I don't care if Seattle ever gets a team. They might deserve one, but I really hope the cave people up there make it difficult.

Those rabid obnoxious Seattle fans are no worse than some of our own. The fans of Seattle lost their team because their city failed them. We are incredibly lucky to have Kevin Johnson to lead our cause. I hope Seattle is able to get a team again, but not by stealing someone else's.

 

[Trueblood]

Just for the hell of it....

NW Division

Seattle
Vancouver
Portland
Minnesota

Pacific

San Francisco/GS
Sacramento
Clippers
Lakers

SW Division

Utah
Denver
Phoenix
OKC

Southern

Dallas
Houston
San Antonio
Memphis

Central

Milwaukee
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit

Atlantic

Toronto
Boston
New York
Brooklyn

Mid Atlantic

Philadelphia
Washington
Indiana
Charlotte

SE

New Orleans
Atlanta
Orlando
Miami

That's if you go the NFL route of 4 teams in 8 divisions. You could also just have two 6 team divisions and keep it the way it is.

 

[Fear the Putin]

It should be the CA division

 

[Cwebb#4]

Sacramento is three times as close to the NW as Minny. Lol, minny is more NE.

 

[Cwebb#4]

Better divisions:


Southwest Division:
OKC
Dallas
San Antonio
Houston

Southeast:
Miami
Orlando
Atlanta
Norleans

East Division:
Charlotte
Indy
Washington
Philly

Atlantic:
New York
Boston
Toronto
Brooklyn

Northeastern:
Chicago
Toronto
Milwaukee
Detroit

Southwest:
LA Lakers
LA Clippers
Sanfran/GS
Phoenix

Northwest:
Portland
Seattle
Vancouver
Sacto

Central:
Utah
Denver
Minny
(whichever team I'm missing)

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Just for the hell of it....

NW Division

Seattle
Vancouver
Portland
Minnesota

Better divisions:


Southwest Division:
OKC
Dallas
San Antonio
Houston

Southeast:
Miami
Orlando
Atlanta
Norleans

East Division:
Charlotte
Indy
Washington
Philly

Atlantic:
New York
Boston
Toronto
Brooklyn

Northeastern:
Chicago
Toronto
Milwaukee
Detroit

Southwest:
LA Lakers
LA Clippers
Sanfran/GS
Phoenix

Northwest:
Portland
Seattle
Vancouver
Sacto

Central:
Utah
Denver
Minny
(whichever team I'm missing)

1. What happened to Memphis?
2. You have Toronto twice.
3. What the hell are Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit northeast of? For that matter, what is New Orleans southeast of? Is this one of those California things, where it's east, relative to you, so it must be in the east?
4. Where the hell do you people keep getting Vancouver from? Am I missing something?

 

[VF21]

1. What happened to Memphis?
2. You have Toronto twice.
3. What the hell are Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit northeast of? For that matter, what is New Orleans southeast of? Is this one of those California things, where it's east, relative to you, so it must be in the east?
4. Where the hell do you people keep getting Vancouver from? Am I missing something?

They're using Vancouver as a second expansion team to make the divisions equal. Some folks have been discussing that Vancouver lost its team because of the Canadian economy and that they should be able to get a team back.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

They're using Vancouver as a second expansion team to make the divisions equal. Some folks have been discussing that Vancouver lost its team because of the Canadian economy and that they should be able to get a team back.

Really? I was under the impression that Vancouver lost its team because British Columbians don't give a rat's *** about basketball. An NBA team in Vancouver probably has only a slightly better chance of succeeding than an NBA team in Pittsburgh.

 

[Trueblood]

1. What happened to Memphis?
2. You have Toronto twice.
3. What the hell are Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit northeast of? For that matter, what is New Orleans southeast of? Is this one of those California things, where it's east, relative to you, so it must be in the east?
4. Where the hell do you people keep getting Vancouver from? Am I missing something?

As VF21 noted, Vancouver is most often mentioned as the 2nd expansion team if they were to go that route.

New Orleans is southeast of all the Texas teams and OKC. If the league were to expand to Seattle and Vancouver, someone from the WC would have to move to the EC and New Orleans is the eastern most market in the WC right now. Not to mention that when you look at a map, it is a lot closer to the east coast than other Mississippi river markets due to the how our nation's coast moves inward as it goes south. Therefore, New Orleans is about 100 to 150 miles closer to the coast than Memphis even though they are both on the river.

 

[Trueblood]

Really? I was under the impression that Vancouver lost its team because British Columbians don't give a rat's *** about basketball. An NBA team in Vancouver probably has only a slightly better chance of succeeding than an NBA team in Pittsburgh.

You'd be surprised. I don't have time to look up the links but there is lots of discussion on why that relocation happened but in all cases, it has nothing to do with interest in basketball but rather the economy at the time and lack of a local buyer.

I will say that they averaged over 17,000 fans a game for their first 4 years in the league with the Grizzlies. That was with records of 15-67, 14-68, 19-63 and 9-41 in the lockout year. They didn't drop in to the 13,000 range for their final 2 seasons but that was because in '99-00, the fan base assumed that they were St. Louis bound then of course, nobody showed up in the 2nd half of '01 due to the Memphis relocation being in motion.

But I do agree on the Pittsburgh part. A 4th sport in a market the size of Sacramento with a very small foreign presence would be a disaster.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Again, southeast is relative. If they move New Orleans to the eastern conference (which is not a move I necessarily oppose, although I would rather see Memphis), they should not hold on the "Southeast" name. Just make it the "South" division.

 

[VF21]

Really? I was under the impression that Vancouver lost its team because British Columbians don't give a rat's *** about basketball. An NBA team in Vancouver probably has only a slightly better chance of succeeding than an NBA team in Pittsburgh.

I'm not supporting the validity of their argument. I was just telling you what it was.

 

[Trueblood]

Again, southeast is relative. If they move New Orleans to the eastern conference (which is not a move I necessarily oppose, although I would rather see Memphis), they should not hold on the "Southeast" name. Just make it the "South" division.

Fine with me. Divisional names are irrelevant at this point. I'm just looking at a map and figuring out what markets are close to each and other and bunching them in divisions accordingly. I still role with my idea since as you noted, the other post missed Memphis and had Toronto twice.