- 06/22/2012, 10:15PM ET
7#bag _ Com said 06/22, 10:15 PM
If you were the owner of the Seattle NBA-ready arena, and David Stern gave you the choice of either a brand-new expansion team (same rules as the Bobcats), or having the Kings move and you take over the franchise.
What option do you choose?
Me? I'll take the Kings. I get a staff, a sales operations, people who know how to do the little things for a NBA franchise, since its a new building the ex-Sonics won't be much help.
Mrlns Fn said 06/23, 12:21 AM
I'd pick an expansion team, no question. Here's why:
For one, the Kings suck. I would want nothing to do with that roster, with the exception of DeMarcus Cousins. At least with an expansion team you get to pick and choose your roster; by taking over the Kings you'd be saddled with all the baggage they're already ladened with.
And let's be honest... Sacramento is a fairly loyal basketball town and even there the Kings could not succeed. I realize Seattle is a strong basketball town as well, but why the hell would you want to take over somebody's failed business venture? If I trusted my own business acumen, which I do, I would definitely want to be able to start at square one, instead of square negative-twenty or wherever the Kings are right now.
Here's another reason: you said the ex-Sonics staff wouldn't be able to help much because Seattle has a new arena. I agree.
So why the heck would the Kings staff be able to help? It's a new arena to them, too. Might as well hire your own staff, your own players, etc.
In summary, I would rather start my own enterprise and do it all myself instead of trying to ressurect somebody else's failed franchise.
7#bag _ Com said 06/23, 08:50 PM
With an expansion team you have 3 major disadvantages
1. Salary Cap - per the NBA
Charlotte will have a Salary Cap in its first season equal to 66% of the Salary Cap applicable to the rest of the league and a Salary Cap in its second season equal to 75% of the Salary Cap applicable to the rest of the league
So you got that going for you, nothing like being forced to be cheap, grace the fans with bargan-basement Free Agents to go with your expansion team.
2. NBA Draft.
If the Sonics Suck, I can get the top pick.
The NBA assigns you the number FOUR pick (Bobcats traded up to #2)
So while I'm pairing Cousins with Unibrow, you are hoping Harrison Barnes pans out.
The Talent dropoff from 1 to 4 is STEEP but I still have to win the lotto. Considering past history (Durant,Payton) I think No 2 is a pretty good spot. But the story is the BEST you can do is 4.
3. Expansion Draft
The Kings SUCK
But how many of them would be a top 8 player on most teams? 5? 4?
Cause you get ZERO of them
Each NBA team gets to protect EIGHT players (and RFAs) .
So I'm going to give you either my headcases or my bottom bench players or my bad contracts.
Mrlns Fn said 06/24, 12:23 AM
1) The salary cap.
Yes, the Sonics would be operating under a staggered cap. But that's really no big deal considering they'd be choosing from the 9-12 players on the rest of the teams. So obviously we're not talking about any max contracts or anything. None of players available for the expansion draft would have a contract large enough to put Seattle in any kind of dangerous cap position, so the cap is irrelevant in this situation.
2)Anthony Davis/Harrison Barnes
I definitely wouldn't be drafting Harrison Barnes because I think he's all hype. Sure, I'd miss out on Davis. IF David Stern made this situation possible before the end of next week, which seems HIGHLY unlikely. More realistic scenario sees the Seattle arena receiving a team next year at the earliest, and there's no telling who might be entering that draft. Either way, it won't be the UniBrow. It's a "what if" scenario but the draft pick aspect is a big enough variable that we can't really even argue it without falling back on straight up conjecture.
Yeah... I'm fine with that. I'd rather pick from the entire NBA's 9-12 roster players than be saddled with the sorry **** Kings.
7#bag _ Com said 06/25, 03:41 PM
You have Tyreke Evans, Cousins, John Salmons, Isiah Thomas and the JIMMER
Again, you have the 4th overall pick- and you pick of travis outlaw, chuck hayes and marcus Thorton (at 7M) to pluck off my roster.
Other than Salmons, I really don't have any crappy contracts, and he's "only" 8.5 a year.
Does this mean the Kings can compete? H*lls no, but its further along than an expansion team, and with your inability to sign significan free agents or get the top pic for the first few years puts you miles behind most franchises.
Mrlns Fn said 06/25, 09:58 PM
Tyreke Evans is completely lost. He got off to a great start in his rookie year but he's hit the wall, big time, to the point where the Kings' front office folks are debating whether or not they want Evans playing small forward now, or keep playing point guard even though he seems ill-suited at that spot. Cousins is ultra talented but he's also probably the biggest head case in the entire NBA. Isaiah Thomas and Jimmer have some talent but neither one is capable of being a franchise leader. And Salmons is terrible. He's the real reason the Kings are debating moving Evans to SF.
Like you said yourself, transferring Sac-Town's destitute basketball franchise to Seattle is not going to make them compete (or in your words, H*lls no) so I just don't see the benefit. Granted there is the potential for having a slightly higher draft pick, but even that would come at the expense of another cellar-dwelling season, which makes the draft pick a whole lot less appealing.
Way I see it is this: if you're going to start over in Seattle, then just start over. Pick a new front office, a new roster, etc. Start at square one and try to build a winner. The Kings are proven losers.
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia