ESPN's PTI's Michael Wilborn on 5/17 after discussing the Sacramento Kings situation and "NBA expansion" throws out the "New Orleans can't support two professional sports teams with it's present population" bomb. Very annoying that these so called experts have nothing else to do but speculate on things they know nothing about. He was implying that the Pelicans could somehow wind up in Seattle.
-
05-17-2013, 06:49 AMheartacre
-
05-17-2013, 07:13 AM42
Let's see if we can get a rebuttal out there.
-
05-17-2013, 07:56 AMcki3915
Here are my thoughts aout this whole issue on several fronts:
1. City of Sacramento: You guys are pot stuck now. The Seattle owenership group has been claiming since this whole dispute started that the arena deal that Kevin Johnson and the Sacramento group had as part of their proposal was hogwash and would never happen. Now that could have been just negotiation fluff of course, but given how things usually happen in California and the history of stadium projects in that state over the last 20 years, there may be some merit here. Think about it: Can't get a stadium built in LA to lure an NFL team, can't get a stadium built in San Diego to replace Qualcomm, can't get a new stadium in Oakland for the A's and Raiders, the 49ers new stadium took about 20 years to finally start happening, the Arco area fiasco. The NBA stuck its neck out for you, you better come through.
2. City of Seattle: I feel bad for you, but you really have no excuses here. I feel about you the same I felt about Charlotte back when we got the Hornets. Same is true for LA when they lost the Rams and Raiders, Cleveland when they lost the Browns, and Houston when they lost the Oilers. If your team plays in a dump and you do not step up to the plate and assist in building a new place, you may lose your team. Period. You may say that it is wrong that owners demand public money for their stadiums, and that its wrong to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on stadiums and that argument certainly has merit. Just don't expect me to have any sympathy for you when you lose your team because there is always a city or a state willing to throw tax money at owners.
Key Arena was a dump for years and years. The city refused to step up to the plate to replace it. The Sonics left. Sorry guys, but i do not feel for you at all.
3. David Stern: It looks like that both Sacramento and New Orleans are the fortunate recipients of what is apparently one of the legacies that David Stern is trying to leave behind when he steps aside, that is that his league will no longer tolerate horrible owners. I think the Hornets leaving Charlotte primarily due to Shinn's stupidity and inabiility to own his team was the last straw. He bought the Hornets from Shinn because he was not going to let Shinn hold New Orleans hostage because Shinn was an idiot. Same with the Maloofs, their problems were totally self caused and they are a bunch of clowns. Stern is not gonna let these kind of bad owners hold his league hostage. He'll let things liek Seattle/OKC go because there was no clownish behavior there. Owner was stuggling, city would not step up, owner quickly sold, team left. There was not years and years of clowning around liek the Maloofs and Shinn had. I don't think Stern liked it at all, but without the years of foolishness ( and with the years of Seattle neglecting its arena situation) probably couldn't stop that one.
Addendum A: Right around the time Stern cracks down on clownish owners in Sacramento and New Orleans, the clown prince of owners himself, Donald Sterling of the Clippers, suddenly starts taking basketball seriously. Coincidence????????
4. Anyone else in a bad arena: Good news for those owners...David Stern will be gone when your issues come to the forefront. I seriously doubt that Adam Silver will have either the power or desire to strongarm owners like Stern has been doing the last several years on thse kinds of issues. When Stern is gone, the NBA will be back to its old ways, and teams will be free to move no matter what they have done to get themselves in trouble. So, if the Bucks are the next team to be in this situation, Stern will be gone by the time their issue hits the papers in a big way. -
05-17-2013, 07:57 AMgreeweI saw that too. So weird. Wilbon seems like a smart guy. You think he'd know that a local owner, local rebrand, new lease, new practice facility, etc. makes the Pelicans unmovable for the next decade at minimum.Quote:
Originally Posted by heartacre
-
05-17-2013, 08:39 AMPurple HazeI saw that too but to be fair he said, "I wonder if New Orleans..." not what you said. He just threw that out there to get attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by heartacre
-
05-17-2013, 08:42 AMPurple Haze
But I did send him a quick tweet:
@RealMikeWilbon Your comment on PTI regarding New Orleans was simply strange. New owner, rebrand, new practice facility, lease until 2024... -
05-17-2013, 08:57 AM42
These guys don't know the details.
They are informed generalists, not specialists. -
05-17-2013, 09:05 AMGumbo Jackson
If there is a feasible way for teams to stay in their current locations I think that should be the default (other things being close to equal). Thus I am happy that Sacramento keeps the Kings. I do think that Seattle got a raw deal before. That city can absolutely support an NBA team and should get one soon. I'd be okay with expansion. I have heard rumblings that Milwaukee may be a possibility as a relocation.
-
05-17-2013, 09:07 AMPurple HazeNO NO NO. The league is already too watered down as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumbo Jackson
-
05-17-2013, 09:41 AMcki3915
I think there will never be any more expansion teams ever in the NBA, NFL, MLB, or NHL domestically. Any future expansion will be inernational. I think its clear that Roger Goddell wants a team in London come hell or high water. I'd bet that the NBA is waiting on that and if that works, they will do the same. That is the only expansion i forsee in any of these sports. Relocation is the only option to geta team now.
-
05-17-2013, 01:35 PMKibnerWith front office talent; not player talent. There are so many more people playing basketball today at a higher level than there ever has been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Haze
Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2 -
05-17-2013, 02:39 PMBasketball NateIt's a complete waste of argument and air time in 2013.Quote:
Originally Posted by heartacre
-
05-17-2013, 03:57 PMPowerPel
I just ignore Wilbon like I ignore Skip Bayless. They just want to get under your skin. Don't take the bait. You can shut them up by FILLING the seats this season. If it really got to you buy some tickets. It $ucks to go these games in the arena and see it half full or cheering for the HEAT. Prove em wrong this season.
-
05-17-2013, 06:02 PMkclaboy504Not too sure about that. I think Seattle will get an expansion team. Like stern said. They will visit expansion for Seattle when the new tv deal is in place.We will see tho.Quote:
Originally Posted by cki3915
-
05-18-2013, 05:42 AMbigdub81I'm glad you saw that crap to because I called him out on twitter behind it and dared him to respond since he apparently works for a "sports reporting" business. Other people from other NBA cities even questioned him about it. Lost a lot of respect for dude behind that!Quote:
Originally Posted by heartacre
-
05-18-2013, 08:39 AMEman5805You were being too nice. Should've said idiotic and uninformed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Haze
New Orleans shouldn't have two franchises is a LOT of talking heads on ESPN's position. I guarantee you Colin Cowherd shares the sentiment. Especially since he's from that area. -
05-18-2013, 08:41 AMNOLa.
Wilbon (like other media personnel) is just a little troll. Pay no attention and they die away.
-
05-19-2013, 01:15 AMPsalm 102.6
I am happy for Sacramento, however I have major question marks on how a city that is already economically frail as it is can financially afford to fund building of a new arena. Also, if you look at history of arena/stadium construction; the average time for construction/funding/approvals seems to be around six years. The 49ers and Giants had to wait that long to get their stadiums completed. I have a suspicion it's going to take this that long for Sacramento.
I hate seeing cities lose their team (I know it sounds hypocritical of me to say) but I also think the Seattle group/offer seemed a little more firm and full of answers. The Sacramento conglomorate has a ton too many holes for my liking.
As for Willbon, he's like a majority of the ESPN "employees." He's a glorified talking head. -
05-19-2013, 09:10 AMKibnerThe funding and approval have already been completed for SAC. They are selling the parking spots around the location for the new arena to the team. They are making up that lost revenue with increased revenue sharing from some aspects of the arena.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayou Bee
-
06-03-2013, 08:29 AMFlyGirl
NBA roundup: NBA gives Kings arena deadline
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba-rou...7366--nba.htmlQuote:
The NBA is giving the new Sacramento Kings ownership group a 2017 deadline to have a new arena built or risk losing the team to new owners.
The Sacramento Bee reported that the group, which is led by Vivek Ranadive, must meet a series of benchmarks as part of the agreement to own the team. Its purchase of the Kings from the Maloof family for an NBA-record $535 million was finalized this week.
If Ranadive's group does not meet the 2017 deadline, the NBA can arrange for new owners to buy the team and move it to another city. Ranadive plans to have an arena built by 2016.
I'm rather surprised to see the "B" word used in conjunction with another team outside of ours. :rolleyes: -
06-03-2013, 06:12 PMPowerPel