The Sacramento Kings Saga: Should Seattle Have Attracted the Team Instead?

In 2012-13, the NBA rumors buzzed with the possibility of the Sacramento Kings relocating to Seattle. Well, while they might be quite hot under the collar about the team staying in Sacramento, it seems clear that the move would not have been a positive development for the league or any of its stakeholders. As someone who is a fan of the Kings and once called Sacramento my home, I stand by the belief that, except in the direst of circumstances, relocations are generally bad for professional sports leagues.

Community and Relocation

From what I've read in the Seattle newspapers and online commentary, there seems to be a mixed reaction among local fans. There is a hint of guilt there, which is understandable. However, it's worth noting that once a team is established in a new city, the community's initial reservations often fade away. This phenomenon happens in all instances of franchise relocation, whether it be in Seattle, New Orleans, or any other city. The fact that Sacramento's team stayed in the city where it belongs, rather than moving to Seattle, underlines the impact such decisions can have on community confidence.

Dire Circumstances and Leagues

The main reason cited for Sacramento's team stay is the Maloofs' financial troubles. They have overextended themselves in casino enterprises and other ventures, leading to their inability to provide the financial stability needed to keep the team in Sacramento. In such dire situations, NBA owners and mayor Kevin Johnson must work together to find a new ownership team that can keep the franchise in the city. If they fail to do so and allow the Kings to move, it would send a very negative message throughout the country. It would suggest that any team is vulnerable, and the NBA is more of a traveling circus than an organization committed to long-term relationships with its communities.

Market Growth and Development

Despite the threat of relocation, Sacramento remains a fast-growing metropolitan area. While it currently lacks the corporate headquarters presence that Seattle has, it is poised to overtake Seattle in terms of sheer population in the near future. Sacramento is nurturing a growing presence in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and other promising industries. These developments indicate that the market can thrive and support the team without a major corporate presence.

Imagining the Expansion Dream

While it's understandable why fans might prefer an expansion team to be added in Sacramento rather than one that gets relocated back from Kansas City in 1985, the rationale is quite similar in both scenarios. Expansion teams provide the opportunity for cities to build their basketball culture from the ground up, while relocations can undermine the confidence of existing fan bases.

Ultimately, the decision to keep the Sacramento Kings in the city where they belong is a positive one for the community and the NBA. Relocations should be considered only in the most dire circumstances, and as fans and local leaders, we must work to ensure that every step is taken to keep teams within their communities, fostering long-term relationships that benefit both the teams and the cities they represent.

Key Takeaways:

NBA relocation can undermine community confidence. Sacramento's potential as a growing market for basketball. Importance of long-term relationships between teams and their cities.

By maintaining a vigilant approach to franchise management and ensuring that every effort is made to keep teams where they are, the league can build strong, long-lasting communities that celebrate their teams year after year.