Title be damned, the truth will come out of this sultry clandestine affair the Maloof's have been waging with the city of Anaheim (and the Honda Center with Henry Samuel lurking in the shadows) all of which keeps the city of Sacramento, and Kings fans especially, in the crosshairs of a potential move at all times. There is no question that at this point there will be relief when the situation is resolved as not knowing is always far worse than knowing what will be happening. Or speculating about it for days, weeks and months on end. (Which is essentially the same thing.)
This is not an anti-Maloof fanpost. I promise you that. It's not a pro Anaheim or pro Sacramento fanpost. What this is is an attempt to examine Anaheim as a potential NBA market Sacramento be damned. Let's be honest; the Maloof's deciding that Sacramento is worth one more shot will largely be determined by the reality of where they find Anaheim financially feasible. That's the reality. Sacramento may be the twisted red headed step child in this deal, but it's better than being the Indian kid 7000 miles away who is talking to you about your problems with a particular Microsoft program. Or some such.
Do the Maloof's benefit by being in the Honda Center?
There is no getting around this. Despite what many can say about Arco II, and whether the Maloof's can make money in Arco II, the reality is that the Honda Center offers a greater potential yield than Arco II can offer. The only way Sacramento can trump this is building a new arena.
The Honda Center may be old, but, depending on the viewpoint, it may be a lot more viable for a lot longer. Also, there is potential for a renovation that Arco II doesn't have simply due to the bigger footprint and the already existing luxury boxes. In otherwords, the Honda Center is the type of building the Maloof's are after.
What are the odds that the HC has agreed to terms with the Maloof's? Likely from where I stand. Henry Samueli has wanted a NBA team for the building for the longest time. He already has an anchor tenant, and loses nothing if the Kings come in to fill dates. He can offer a sweetheart lease deal to the Maloof's. But this is worth noting: This is not likely to generate the kind of revenue necessary for the Maloof family to move the Kings franchise down to Anaheim. There is no way that a single season (or even 5 potentially) could generate the revenue from luxury boxes and ticket sales needed to really generate the type of revenue to pay off the likely expenses that a move such as this would incur. One might also point out that the Maloof's would likely have to sell the land around Arco just to generate revenue to pay part of the moving costs. As they would be literally anathema in Sacramento, it would be a short term solution in a series of short term solutions.
Does the financial losses of the Palms really affect this move?
I see this mentioned a lot. To be quite honest, I'm not really sure that it does. It's not because I think the Palms are actually making money; I'm not sure you could make that argument until 2015 and the economy has sufficiently recovered to the point that discretionary income is being spent in Vegas at a high enough rate to believe that the Palms is a true-blue moneymaker.
This is why I don't think this is about the Palms. The Maloof's supposedly have lived off their father's investments their whole lives, but I do wonder about that. Their mother has had a huge influence in their increase of wealth including their buying of stock in Wells Fargo (which supposedly happened after George Maloof Sr died), the decision to build the Palms, the buying of minority and majority shares of the Kings, and (I'm sure) the decision to sell the distributorship. One could argue with the timing to sell a distributorship to save the Palms, but it's also possible the Maloof's didn't want to deal with the hassle of running a business in which they weren't around to locally supervise. Whether you like them or don't (and I don't), the Maloof family generally has been directly involved in the running of their businesses. If their mother (Coleen Maloof -- who to my knowledge is the only one still living in New Mexico--of the 5 immediately family members is what I mean; I know other family members live there as well), and what not, how does selling the distributorship save the Palms if you have (and I'm not sure what the total amount of the Palms debt is--but I'm sure it's between 400 and 500 million dollars) a distributorship of Coors in one state that's worth 100 million max? (I forgot there is a brother Phillip in the equation too.)
A great line Robert B Parker used once in his book "Bad Business" (the book used a different name for the company--but it was about the rise and fall of Enron essentially), that can be applied about businesses in general.
"Is it that simple?"
"At bottom a lot of businesses are simple. American Airlines flys you from Boston to LA. That's the service. The complicated part is how to do this profitability."
If you think about the selling of the distributorship, and take it on face value (and not because the Maloof's say so by all means), one might assume that the selling of distributorship came at a time when the family was looking to sell and there was value in doing so. If you're only going to get 1/5 of the value of your loans to pay off the Palms, why sell the distributorship? It's a money-maker. From a business perspective: I could understand selling one business to save another. But not selling one business to save 20% of another business.
Here's a better question: What if the Maloof's were cash poor in 2009? They certainly aren't now. Selling a distributorship is a good way to increase one's cash flow. Wells Fargo stock is starting to recover even. The Kings are making money (mainly due to the lowest payroll and committed total salary in the NBA) right now. The only business that is really hurting is the Palms, and this begs the question: If the Palms is the only business that is really hurting, what have they lost if they declare bankruptcy on that particular business? (Other than their ego of course.) Or what have they really lost if they give up the majority shares of the Palms to Harrah's and simply run the place for profit? Sure it's not ownership of a casino, but it's better than declaring bankruptcy and losing total control of the casino. Nothing in life is perfect.
Supposedly the Maloof's had a billion dollars plus in asset's at one point. (No doubt in part because of the Palms.) One, however, can also realistically argue that they aren't poor even with the Palms and selling of the Coors' distributorship rights in New Mexico. One could argue they helped their net worth a little by cashing out at the right time and shed a sunk cost by turning it into a small profit over time. (I'm not going to argue this. I don't know it for a fact, nor do I really care.)
So this is the point: What if the Maloof's do see the Kings as a separate business? They haven't paid luxury tax since 2003. (They haven't paid it under the current CBA. The 99-05 CBA had a different version of the luxury tax you don't want to understand.) They are certainly are getting their shares of escrow tax, too. That's likely to be somewhere roughly around 10.4 million between the luxury and escrow tax payments alone. (Luxury tax accounted for just a bit over 3.7 million. For those that aren't aware, luxury tax payments are awarded to non tax paying teams at a 1/30th share. Escrow tax accounted for just over 5.6 million.) Supposedly, the Maloof's also got 2.9 million in the Sergio Rodriguez deal on draft day. (Although this probably was used to help the battered bottom line of the 08-09 season.) Like I say, they are not necessarily losing money on the Kings. If your revenues aren't going up, you cut costs. That is precisely what they have done.
The point? This isn't just about money, but about making (what else?) more money! Die of shock immediately.
But Anaheim can offer a better TV contract? Right?
Aye, this is the rub. FSN Socal can offer more money. They cannot, however, likely offer more potential profit. Yes, FSN Socal is losing the Lakers. the better question is to be asked: What if FSN Socal is only willing to offer so much money? Isn't that why they lost the Lakers to the new CSN? Because FSN Socal wasn't willing to go as high as the CSN? So my question is this: How does becoming the 3rd team in the NBA market in Southern California equate to more money for the Maloof's? Answer: I'm not sure that it's even possible.
Here's the best question: Why would FSN Socal offer what they offered the LA Lakers to the Maloof's in order to broadcast Kings games? Just because they lost the Lakers to CSN in a bidding war where they capped themselves out? I got news for yall: Airtime is nowhere near as expensive as the bid to get the folks who put on the entertainment to fill the airtime. FSN Socal probably has offered the Maloof's money. They would want to replace the Lakers in those time slots. Any network in that position would. The problem? How they can offer the 3rd NBA team, in both reality and ratings, Lakers money when they weren't even willing to pony up what it took to retain the right to broadcast Laker games in the first place? FSN Socal already broadcasts Dodger games, USC & UCLA games, LA Kings (Hockey) games, and the Angels. Those are all prime Socal sports properties to begin with. Losing the Lakers hurts, sure, but how does spending money on a sub-prime property make up for the fact that you could potentially lose all your prime properties if you spend too much money on the TV rights to the Anaheim douchebags? I don't get it. That's not only stupid, that's just plum dumb.
One other point. This is not moving a team from a market with plenty of competition (Seattle) to Oklahoma City (far less competition and in reality only Oklahoma U and Oklahoma St U). This is not Clay Bennett wanting badly to bring the NBA to Oklahoma City. This is the Maloof's looking for a better financial situation. I'm not arguing the Maloof's shouldn't move if that situation doesn't exist. In fact, if the Kings are still in Sacramento in 2012, I would wonder why they would stick around in a city not willing to make a real commitment. (Assuming it plays out that way.) Last I checked, until that happens, that reality hasn't played out yet. The TV rights, while perhaps simple in some respects, are rather complicated. It's easy to say they will get more money from FSN Socal to broadcast Kings games, but the question really is: Will they get more profit? I believe the answer is no.
Would the owners not approve of relocation?
Forget the other owners (and David Stern who probably votes for the Hornets in Board of Governor meetings) here for a moment. You want to focus on Jerry Buss and Donald Sterling in reality. Why? They're going to ask for territorial fee's, and, make no mistake, they will be astronomical. Probably somewhere in the realm of 150 million dollars a piece. To be the 3rd NBA team in Southern California. While FSN Socal has plenty of ways it can replace the Lakers programming, Jerry Buss and Donald Sterling would be stupid to not ask the moon and settle for the Earth in terms of money in this thing. Why shouldn't they?
Ignoring that Sterling moved the Clippers from San Diego to the Sports Arena in LA (mainly because that's moving within the region and not from another region into another region), this is not the same thing as moving from Sacramento to Anaheim. It's not the same thing in any way shape or form. This is not even moving into Sacramento with the Warriors already in the Bay Area. Sac is a completely separate market from the Bay Area (a fact a lot of people conveniently ignore when it suits them). This type of move is moving into a territory that is not even half of what a team's "legal" broadcasting territory is. And, to boot, it's moving into the same media market with 2 MLB teams, 2 high profile college teams, and 2 NHL teams. Additionally, with all the talk of AEG building a new NFL stadium somewhere in downtown LA, there is likely to have a NFL team on the horizon in the area pretty soon, too. Exactly how is the beneficial to the Maloof's? And, with all of this, why wouldn't Jerry Buss and Donald Sterling ask for, say, 300 million dollars apiece? That's a lot of cheddar to give up with so much stiff competition in a city that demands an event out of sport. Especially to a team in your division that is in the same state already with a tiny smattering of fans already in the area.
So what does this mean? Potential litigation. Potential litigation that could, for the Maloof's unfortunately, delay the move until the litigation is resolved. When the Sonics moved from Seattle to OKC, one of the sad realities I learned was that the city of Seattle (despite repeatedly stressing the emotional impact in the trial combined with the financial loss to Seattle Center with the Sonics departure) couldn't win an "enforce the lease" trial without bringing compensation into the deal. In otherwords, leases are about money when it goes into trial, and you don't need to possess legal knowledge to understand what that means. If the NBA is going to allow the Kings to move into Anaheim over Sterling and Buss' objections, there is likely to be litigation. Especially if there is a big attempt to skirt territorial fee's. (Which is likely to happen even if a certain sect of owners disagree. All that's needed to approve from the Board of Governor's point of view is 15 votes.) I can't imagine the Maloof's can afford to pay attorney's for a long drawn out bout of litigation with 2 deep pocketed owners while losing money in the market they are currently in. That smacks not only of bad business, but extremely idiotic planning.
So why are the Maloof's looking?
I'm glad you asked.
The first issue is Arco II. Been there done that. The second issue is one that rarely gets talked about, and definitely needs to get out in the forefront a lot more: The contract with CSN is expiring in 2011. That's why now. It's convenient. Why deal with TV media rights when you don't have to? That's just one less expense right? Right. The problem of course is what I already referred to with FSN Socal: The need to replace the programming with the need to be fiscally prudent. I'm not really sure that's what the Maloof's had in mind by heading down to Anaheim. They need a sweet-heart deal, and nothing up to this point (outside of the Honda Center) provides that. Since just about everyone actually agree's that the real money to be made is not in the Arena alone, but the TV rights to broadcast games, that has to be the sticking point. Which is, again, a rather strong sticking point.
Sacramento has usually had good ratings. It's similar to San Antonio's ratings but again, the team has been down lately. That not only hurts the butts in the seats, but also TV ratings too. Most fans want to watch a winner, and it doesn't matter if it's at the crummy ole gas dump or in the comforts of their living room watching it on their flat screen LCD in HD.
The issue will be a new arena, and returning the team to prominence to get fans interested. (Along with an identifiable identity that's needed to get the fans back. That's why I put Jason Williams 15th on the best Sacramento Kings moments. Even though J-Will really didn't have a great impact on the court long term, he did give the Kings a badly needed identity both regionally and worldwide. That was the start of the revolution as they say.) Those issue's are both fixable, and the team is more than likely to return to prominence if they are wise about the moves they make. Especially if a panic buy in Free Agency doesn't happen. That's a different argument though.
So what will it take to get a new arena?
The 35 & under voters to approve it. That's the simple answer. The complicated part is to get them to vote and care about the issue to want to vote "Yes" on a new tax that would allow a new arena to be built downtown. That, and not lose any of the pro-arena voters over 35 who agree with the concept. (I don't think they will care if most of the campaign is geared towards the younger voters whose numbers can outweight those who disagree with it.)
Convincing the people who don't vote to vote would be a good start. Starting with this would not be such a bad idea: If you live in today's US, you've had 99 percent more political power than anyone else on the history of the planet Earth. You want the Kings to stay, or you're interested in starting the process or urban planning/urbanization/other entertainment that a new facility would provide. Pick one. The trick is not to pursue this as a Kings arena, or a Maloof facility, but as a facility for sports entertainment and other events that benefit the region. By extension, Sacramento will have different types of businesses and action around the new arena that will help sustain and potential grow the right type of urbanization for Sacramento.
A real question is can Kevin Johnson and the politicans in Sacramento pull off this badly needed Venn Diagram to voters? Another real question are Sacramentans willing to (finally) have an honest conversation about their wishes? And I don't mean the idiots that makes this about sports teams or the Maloof's. This isn't about the stupendous timing of the Carl's Jr commercial during Q&R or about the Maloof's profit on the Kings. This is about Sacramento. If Sacramento has an honest conversation, and doesn't want to build a new entertainment facility for itself, that's fine. 2nd rate town is what you want and will receive. You get what you pay for.
Here's a better question. What happens when the petroleum runs out? Are you going to want to pay 200 dollars a pop to drive to the Bay Area to see a concert? Or Tahoe/Reno? Is that really appealing? Not to me. It's why I live in Seattle. Other than I prefer milder weather, I also like how accessible everything in Seattle is without a car. It's one reason I don't plan on leaving unless I get one of those rare jobs the lucky few get that completely force me to relocate. (Even to, gulp, Southern California. Okay I'm done smacking myself over the head for writing that. Must.Hate.Socal. Well with the exception of San Diego. Then I'd love living down there.) At any rate, one thing that absolutely frustrates me is the pointlessness of Sacramento public transportation. I don't ride the buses there as the service sucks. Like, at any time that isn't involving commuters. That's not a way to run public transit. I'll give you a hint: Good public transit usually has the words "24 hours" included in it. This isn't happening in Sacramento at all. Happens on the East Coast. Happens in the Bay Area and LA. Why is Sacramento a city that dies after sundown? Last I checked (and I spent a lot of time driving a taxi amongst the sparse nightlife in 2 different counties a few years ago when the economy was better), there are people who still care about this. Sacramento has a piss poor nightlife, and I"m not talking about the musical options. Del Paso Blvd is a shithole. Ditto with virtually everything south of Broadway on Stockton Blvd. Aurora Ave and Rainier Blvd are generally considered the 2 worst streets in Seattle. (If you go to Renton, you will notice that the downtown there looks a lot like Sacramento. Except the major employer there is Boeing.) Compared to Stockton or Del Paso Blvd, these places are the residences of angels. And it's not like crackheads, bums and other sorts of riff-raff don't populate these places. The difference? These types of places create eye sores on a city, and making a real effort to make them more attractive is generally considered a good idea. Which brings me to this point: Unincorporated urbanized area right next to incorporated urbanized area is a realllllyyyyyyy bad idea. Meet Stockton Blvd south of 14th Ave in otherwords. The place is a dump, and it's mainly because the County of Sacramento has no financial interest in sprucing it up. There is no interest of losing that land because of the potential tax revenue that the big shopping mall near Fruitride occupies. L:ja;lajk;vljkal;eja;leja;lj (Excuse me: I'm banging my head on the desk where I'm writing this and it will stop somewhere around 2047.)
This is exactly why young people need to get out and vote. To encourage things like incorporating area's that have no business being unincorporated. Tax base or not. Cities are part of counties. Taxes include covering county costs. Counties, especially one with quite a bit of people in Sacramento county, do not have to exist in the current context anymore. (What should really happen is Super Counties. Yolo, Sacramento, Placer El Dorado and San Joaquin counties would be one. If you want to be daring, add Sutter and Yuba counties. Explain this conundrum to me: Why is Marysville the county seat of Yuba County and Yuba City the county seat of Sutter county? You got me. They are right friggin next to each other. Anyway, my point is that it's not just Sacramento that engages in this type of local silliness. You know what the sad part is? There's a logical explanation that has to do with the river and when the counties were created. Because you know, counties couldn't ever consider merging or anything. Only splitting up.) Ignoring political silliness (or addressing it for a change) would be a nice bi-product of building a new arena. Certainly everyone can agree on that, right?
The "best of the rest" of why Anaheim may not be such a swell idea
I don't care what Greg Anthony or Marc Spears have to say on Yahoo. The fact is that Anaheim is not a better long term money-maker for the Maloof's. They don't have the market, or really, the stranglehold on entertainment the way they do in Sacramento. Sure, recently the Sacramento market has not been swell. Again, they are almost certainly not losing money. This is about long term viability. We don't need to discuss why there is a need for a new arena. That's pretty well been established just about everywhere discussion of the Kings comes up.
There is another wrinkle to all of this. What about long term ownership? Ah-ha, I think we've just found our tipping point Cap'n. Assuming the Maloof's are basing the Anaheim move on retaining ownership of the Kings, one might ask: Why move to Anaheim when a move almost certainly will include language on a new lease that will include ownership stake in the Kings for Henry Samueli? (I would assume this is if the lease moves into default for whatever reason.) Why move into a building, into a market, that does not guarantee success. What does it take to succeed in Southern California? In my opinion, 2 things. First is winning championships. I think we all know how hard that is to accomplish in the NBA for the Lakers let alone the Kings. (Stupid people: It's not easy to win NBA championships for anyone. That's the point. I don't need to read 8000 comments about why the NBA rigs championships for the Lakers and big markets. Take that trip elsewhere to someone who cares and wishes to discuss that sort of thing.) The second is a marketable superstar. The Kings right now don't have either, and, the marketable superstar part, with all due respect to Tyreke Evans and DeMarcus Cousins, do not apply to Reke or Cuz in relation to the LA/Socal market. Kings fans in Sacramento may love them to death, but Sacramento doesn't require the event of a big stage to be entertained. (If that wasn't deathly obvious to begin with.) LA/Socal does. The Kings will almost certainly never do that. Especially when you consider that the hot properties in the LA market are the Lakers, UCLA basketball, USC football and the Dodgers. Exactly which of those are vacating the LA market again? Do you think the Kings winning anything short of 5 championships will get anyone's attention down there? I'm not sure winning 10 titles would make anyone care. Have you ever seen fans at Laker games with run of the mill opponents? For that matter, notice the crowds during Finals games. Is that really a market the NBA wants to have a 3rd team in? Is that really a market the Maloof's want to stake the financial future of the Kings on?
The Lakers have been in LA since 1960. The Clippers moved to San Diego from Buffalo in 1978. They moved to LA in 1984. The Clippers (and in the case of the Lakers a lot longer) have been down in Socal longer than I've been alive. (And younger King fans worldwide for that matter.) That's a lot of history. The only team to relocate into the market and change their name was the Clippers. (Somehow I don't think the San Diego Braves has the same ring to it.) The Angels have been there since 1961 as an expansion franchise. (Although that was in LA originally.) The Rams moved to LA in 1946 and left in 1995. The Raiders moved to LA in 1982 and left in 1995. The Dodgers arrived in 1958 (along with the Giants in SF--the move would have never happened without both franchises relocating), and hockey teams don't matter. USC & UCLA obviously predate both all of the professional franchises. The success of USC basketball dates back to the '20's, and UCLA basketball obviously hit it's stride in the 60's with a few victories here & there. What's my point about the name changes? LA fans don't care what their teams are called. The Lakers? Really? In Minneapolis that made quite a bit of sense. There's a few lakes in Minnesota. The Dodgers? That's clearly a Brooklyn deal. I'm pretty sure Brooklyn isn't anywhere near LA. While this is also true of the teams that relocated to the Bay Area (including my beloved White Elephants who I no longer really care about), the difference is that these are not location specific names. The Rams you can argue would work or not work anywhere. The Raiders? Ditto. But the Dodgers and Lakers? LA fans don't care. It's not that they are clueless; they just don't give a damn about that type of thing. (On that sidenote, I really wish Luke had renamed the team to the original moniker "Royals" when the team moved to Sac. Sigh.) Although I gotta admit I can see a potential tagline for the team if they do move to Anaheim: "We're a vagabond franchise that doesn't have a real home anymore but we have your corporate support. Come see us play!"
If all of this doesn't scream great idea, that's because it isn't. That's not to say the Maloof's won't put their "I see what I want to see cuz I want to see it" glasses on. It's not beyond the realm of reason that they are seeing what they want to see. In my view, when moving a franchise to a different city, you must consider several things. The big one is TV revenue. It's not the first contract that the Maloof's need to consider; it's the 2nd contract. 1 TV contract screams "new car smell". 2 TV contracts screams "we have a market and we want you here". The new car smell in Anaheim? That might not last 10 games of the regular season next year let alone the whole season. Or a year or two or ten.
All I've laid out with this piece is to point out why Anaheim is not a bad idea. It's not a piece designed to uphold Sacramento as the place the Kings should be without a new arena in place. When Kevin Johnson said "Sacramento won't factor in the decision to keep the Kings from moving to Anaheim", that didn't mean the Kings were 100% gone. The statement really meant that Anaheim might not really be the locale that some are really claiming it could be. This has received negative press in LA and Sacramento. Remember when the Thunder were moving to OKC? People in Oklahoma were jumping up & down for a new team. The Oklahoman was constantly printing articles about the Sonics because they wanted a team badly. The whole state of Oklahoma was drooling for a NBA team. Who is drooling for NBA basketball in Southern California with 2 franchises in tow (not to mention a host of other distractions for a megalopolis) other than Henry Samueli, the city of Anaheim and some scattered individuals in Orange County?
Does anyone think that Orange County residents will really eschew Staples to just attend Kings games at the Honda Center? Do you really think that the lesser drive will really entice that many people just to see the Kings? I heavily doubt that many Orange County residents will buy season tickets for the Kings in Anaheim to see 2 Laker games when they can figure out how to make time to get to Staples at some point without the busy plastic surgery schedule cropping up. I'm just not convinced that Orange County is that separate enough (other than living differences) to really see a difference to support a 3rd NBA team with 2 teams that I'm sure many residents already have attachments to.
Here's what I know. You can debate whether the Maloof's should or shouldn't move to Anaheim. You can't debate that keeping the Kings in Sacramento won't happen without a new arena. Whether that happens with public or private funding, I know Kings fans wouldn't care one iota. I do know that a new arena is the only way to keep the NBA interested (forget the Maloof's for one moment) in Sacramento still. If there's not a new arena in 2012, it's quite possible the Maloof's are told by the NBA that they must get out of Sacramento. Yes: The NBA will push the Kings out of Sacramento faster than Charlie Sheen can reach for his crack pipe. That's a 100% guarantee. Don't think that you'll be able to push the "well they can build it themselves if this market is so great" nonsense. It won't work this time around. We've been stuck at the 11th hour for about 5 years now. I think 5 years crammed into one hour is a bit much. Wouldn't it be a bit nice if Sacramento could act like a grown-up by the time stroked midnight, and rather than turning into a pumpkin, a real identity that isn't associated with "bedroom" or "community". Ah, screw it; I really am dreaming now.
For those who say building a new arena in Sacramento is impossible, so was the Civil Rights movement. There was a time when Chinese immigrants couldn't own land in California. There was a time when women couldn't vote. There was a time when income tax didn't exist. There was a time where prohibition kept alcohol from being sold legally. There was also an amendment to the constitution repealing the very prohibition amendment in the first place. Things change. People change. Needs change. Opinions change. Because something doesn't happen yesterday is no reason to accept that it shouldn't happen tomorrow. That's the issue confronting a new arena in Sacramento. If this wasn't the issue, either the Kings would be gone with no new arena in place, or a new arena is in place with this discussion mostly taking place about why the Maloof's haven't put a competitive team on the court. All I really have to say on this: Better late than never. The late we got regardless of a new arena is built or not. But never? I'm not sure that's a reality most people in the Sacramento region (including the city of Sacramento) really care to see play out. The reality of having a major league sports team offering the area it's most about visibility in just about any capacity is not a good reality to play out. That's not really the reason to build a new arena. But the reality is that losing your team to a market where the team is 3rd in it's market, and as Marc Spears put it, the JV of the JV team is not such a wise idea. That puts the decision to not build a new arena in starker light. The only question is Sacramento interested in wearing pants, or is the area mostly interested in transitioning from Pampers to Depends. I don't know much about diapers, but I know they stink. At that point it really doesn't matter if you're 3 or 73.
Again, Anaheim is no match for the Kings. But that isn't the question anymore. The real question is: Is Sacramento? Only April 18 2011 to March 2012 will tell us that answer.