Under the NBA’s new revenue sharing plans, several teams, if their respective situations do not change, are doomed to be nearly perpetual revenue receivers. That is, the other owners will always be giving them some of their money.
The league may not be able to force the Maloofs to sell the Kings but I believe it does have the power to contract them, eliminating all these pesky Maloof debt problems that are preventing them from participating in a new Arena plan that would keep the team in Sacramento for decades at least.
Suppose, just suppose that the league were to contract two teams, let’s say Charlotte – and yes, Sacramento due to the difficulties each team has in their respective market locations (Charlotte seems to equal no hope) and fiscal situations (both).
The league then turns around and awards deserving Seattle and deserving Sacramento new franchises – if each of the new ownerships and Cities can come up with realistic new Arena plans in short order. Seattle appears to have an ownership group lined up based on whether they can land a team or not and of course, with new owners – Sacramento has an existing plan that (Bukl2!L, excuse me, something caught in my throat, it might have been money) which a new owner could pick the pieces of up immediately. In a new ESC facility would Sacramento be revenue sharing neutral – or close to it? I think you could make that argument.
The expansion teams would have their pick of at least some of the existing players on each team as well as the usual lottery benefits, picks 1 and 2, expansion teams receive.
It's OK, call me Craaaaazy (my wife does almost daily) One can fantasize though - can't he?