Missing Rings in the NBA

[Joe Vancil]

WayOut,

I'm sorry, but there's no way the officiating in the video that Skander showed stands up to the "smell test."  That officiating is an embarrassment.  Were there not Laker jerseys on the players, there's no way you (or anyone else) would be arguing in favor of the way those calls were made.

Skander and I have often argued Kobe's elbow to Bibby.  At the time, I defended Bryant, saying I didn't think it was intentional.  There is, however, no question that intentional or not, IT WAS A FOUL.  As time as gone on, I'm more and more sure that is *WAS* intentional, and much as it pains me to say it, Skander's right on this one.

Interestingly enough, *SKANDER* was a Kobe Bryant fan...right up until that moment.  That's what made the argument so interesting.

I'll let Skander tell you *WHY* incidents like this are climbing...and who the biggest culprit behind all of this is.  And he makes a pretty strong case of it, too.

[WayOutWest]

WayOut,

I'm sorry, but there's no way the officiating in the video that Skander showed stands up to the "smell test."  That officiating is an embarrassment.  Were there not Laker jerseys on the players, there's no way you (or anyone else) would be arguing in favor of the way those calls were made.

Skander and I have often argued Kobe's elbow to Bibby.  At the time, I defended Bryant, saying I didn't think it was intentional.  There is, however, no question that intentional or not, IT WAS A FOUL.  As time as gone on, I'm more and more sure that is *WAS* intentional, and much as it pains me to say it, Skander's right on this one.

Interestingly enough, *SKANDER* was a Kobe Bryant fan...right up until that moment.  That's what made the argument so interesting.

I'll let Skander tell you *WHY* incidents like this are climbing...and who the biggest culprit behind all of this is.  And he makes a pretty strong case of it, too.

There were 2 or 3 calls that were bad in that whole video.  Not the 10 to 20 plus I was expecting.  Not saying some of those calls didn't stink just not enough for me to be convinced.  Most of those calls were justified, I guess what's missing are the clips of the Lakers making those same reaches and grabs and not getting called for it.

Does everyone miss the FACT that Bibby is HOLDING Kobe on that clip?  If the refs are going to miss that OBVIOUS foul on Bibby that would give the Lakers a FT PLUS possesion, because it occurs before the ball is put in play, then yes they should have called the SECOND/retaliation foul on Kobe.

Spin up the DVR Joe because those clips Skandy posted are easily dismissed IMO, we really need to go over the whole quarter/game.

[Joe Vancil]

Actually, I'd call the calls made ONE-SIDED.  What was a foul at one end was not a foul at the other end.  That's the tragedy.

I'm not a fan of the "no-call" in general, but if it's a no-call at one end, I expect it to be a no-call at the other.  I personally like a *VERY* tightly called game.  All of the stuff called on the Kings *SHOULD* have been called;  all of the things that WEREN'T called on the Lakers also should have been called, but weren't.  That's what makes the officiating so bad.

[JoMal]

The issue was the calls all being against the Kings for the same types of transgressions. Non-calls were the reason the Lakers got so agressive - they started to see that they just could get away with whatever it took.

While I have often voiced my opinion about this game previously, what totally sold me on the claims by Donaghy was what Stern has done here in SacTown regarding our arena issue. The Maloofs got very frustrated with the city when it would not (actually it simple just COuLD not) come up with a funding plan to foot the bill for a new arena. This, of course, leads directly to team owners threatening to move the franchise to partner up with a municiple partner more willing to give an arena to billionaire sports team owners without wanting any money to speak of in the form of revenue in return.

In steps Stern here in Sacramento, saying that the city's rabid fans deserve to keep the Kings and he will send his own expert from the League office to negotiate an arena deal somewhere in town, which he did, which up to now has not resulted in any firm agreement being in place, though a promising one proposes building a new arena as part of the Cal Expo redesign.

Do you think the people of Seattle have been wondering why they did not get Stern's expert to help them keep the Sonics? How many other franchises in the history of the NBA have gotten a League expert to help them keep a franchise for the twentieth (or so) largest media market in the country? (Seattle is considerably larger). We Sacramento Kings' fans are wont to look a gift horse in the mouth but there is no precedent for this action.

Stern is running a huge guilt trip, me thinks.

[westkoast]

The issue was the calls all being against the Kings for the same types of transgressions. Non-calls were the reason the Lakers got so agressive - they started to see that they just could get away with whatever it took.

While I have often voiced my opinion about this game previously, what totally sold me on the claims by Donaghy was what Stern has done here in SacTown regarding our arena issue. The Maloofs got very frustrated with the city when it would not (actually it simple just COuLD not) come up with a funding plan to foot the bill for a new arena. This, of course, leads directly to team owners threatening to move the franchise to partner up with a municiple partner more willing to give an arena to billionaire sports team owners without wanting any money to speak of in the form of revenue in return.

In steps Stern here in Sacramento, saying that the city's rabid fans deserve to keep the Kings and he will send his own expert from the League office to negotiate an arena deal somewhere in town, which he did, which up to now has not resulted in any firm agreement being in place, though a promising one proposes building a new arena as part of the Cal Expo redesign.

Do you think the people of Seattle have been wondering why they did not get Stern's expert to help them keep the Sonics? How many other franchises in the history of the NBA have gotten a League expert to help them keep a franchise for the twentieth (or so) largest media market in the country? (Seattle is considerably larger). We Sacramento Kings' fans are wont to look a gift horse in the mouth but there is no precedent for this action.

Stern is running a huge guilt trip, me thinks.

While we both can't say for sure one way or another, I think you are wrong in your assumption for two reasons.

1) The Sacramento Kings of the early 2000s was exactly what the league needed.  They needed a small market team that proved to fans and other franchises (or would be owners) that it is possible to be in a tiny market but still have a loyal, profitable fan base.  As far as small market teams go they were by far very successful.  I might as go as far to say they were the most successful small market team not naming the San Antonio Spurs.  Selling out the arena every single game for most of this decade proves that.  Even after they lost their contender status people were still filling up the arena.  The Lakers, Knicks, and Celtics will always draw big crowds and ratings.  That is a given.  The NBA really needs a lot of smaller market teams to be competitive to strengthen the league as a whole.  The reason the Sonics didn't get help is because they were not nearly on the same level as the Kings from an organization stand point and the owner is an a-hole LOL

2) The Maloofs themselves are probably the most visible and most well known owners in the entire league.  They are always hob knobbing with celebrities and politicians.  Every time their names are brought up the NBA gets a free plug.  When they go on Oprah, when they are sponsoring major events (like they did here in Orange County), when they are at fund raisers, etc.


To me the benefit of keeping the Kings happy AND in a small market means a lot more than doing a massive "make up call"

[JoMal]

While we both can't say for sure one way or another, I think you are wrong in your assumption for two reasons.

1) The Sacramento Kings of the early 2000s was exactly what the league needed.  They needed a small market team that proved to fans and other franchises (or would be owners) that it is possible to be in a tiny market but still have a loyal, profitable fan base.  As far as small market teams go they were by far very successful.  I might as go as far to say they were the most successful small market team not naming the San Antonio Spurs.  Selling out the arena every single game for most of this decade proves that.  Even after they lost their contender status people were still filling up the arena.  The Lakers, Knicks, and Celtics will always draw big crowds and ratings.  That is a given.  The NBA really needs a lot of smaller market teams to be competitive to strengthen the league as a whole.  The reason the Sonics didn't get help is because they were not nearly on the same level as the Kings from an organization stand point and the owner is an a-hole LOL

2) The Maloofs themselves are probably the most visible and most well known owners in the entire league.  They are always hob knobbing with celebrities and politicians.  Every time their names are brought up the NBA gets a free plug.  When they go on Oprah, when they are sponsoring major events (like they did here in Orange County), when they are at fund raisers, etc.


To me the benefit of keeping the Kings happy AND in a small market means a lot more than doing a massive "make up call"

But why??

Is it common for the League to intercede with owners who feel they are not making enough profit from one locality but might be able to garnish more with a move to a more lucrative location? How could they tell an owner that they need to tighten their belts and take on the losses of revenue?

A more logical explanation other then the one I have is that the League <Stern> did not want the Maloofs to move the Kings to the most logical other location they considered, which was Las Vegas. But even that seems unlikely to have motivated Stern to block the move outright. He intervened for a more guilt-ridden cause.

[WayOutWest]

But why??

Is it common for the League to intercede with owners who feel they are not making enough profit from one locality but might be able to garnish more with a move to a more lucrative location? How could they tell an owner that they need to tighten their belts and take on the losses of revenue?

A more logical explanation other then the one I have is that the League <Stern> did not want the Maloofs to move the Kings to the most logical other location they considered, which was Las Vegas. But even that seems unlikely to have motivated Stern to block the move outright. He intervened for a more guilt-ridden cause.

I would put a bit of weight into your argument if it didn't involve an NBA franchise potentially moving to Vegas.  IMO, with image problems the NBA is already dealing with a team in Las Vegas would be too much of a red flag for Stern.

[westkoast]

But why??

Is it common for the League to intercede with owners who feel they are not making enough profit from one locality but might be able to garnish more with a move to a more lucrative location? How could they tell an owner that they need to tighten their belts and take on the losses of revenue?

A more logical explanation other then the one I have is that the League <Stern> did not want the Maloofs to move the Kings to the most logical other location they considered, which was Las Vegas. But even that seems unlikely to have motivated Stern to block the move outright. He intervened for a more guilt-ridden cause.

I would put a bit of weight into your argument if it didn't involve an NBA franchise potentially moving to Vegas.  IMO, with image problems the NBA is already dealing with a team in Las Vegas would be too much of a red flag for Stern.

That is one reason.

JoMal another reason I think is that it really was a premier franchise in this league and the organization is ran well (even if the team is not doing so well).  If the Spurs needed the leagues help to get a bigger or newer place to play I think they would send one down.  The NBA cannot afford to lose one of the most loyal fan bases in the entire country.  No matter how small the market.  Selling out arenas is selling out arenas.

Im sure the talks stalled badly because of the economy moreso than the NBA dropping the ball, would you agree?

[Ted]

As far as small market teams go they were by far very successful.  I might as go as far to say they were the most successful small market team not naming the San Antonio Spurs.

I know this reeks of a serious inferiority complex, but what the heck.

Next to the San Antonio Spurs, the Utah Jazz are the most successful small market team in the history of the NBA.

[westkoast]

As far as small market teams go they were by far very successful.  I might as go as far to say they were the most successful small market team not naming the San Antonio Spurs.

I know this reeks of a serious inferiority complex, but what the heck.

Next to the San Antonio Spurs, the Utah Jazz are the most successful small market team in the history of the NBA.

Correct me if I am wrong Ted but I believe the Kings held the league record for most sold out games.  That is what I was basing it off of partially.  Plus, The Jazz have done a good job of staying successful for the last two decades so it's more incentive for the fans to be loyal.  The Kings were still selling out home games when they were failing to make the playoffs.

Though after just looking up population stats Sacramento has twice as many people in the area than Salt Lake City does.....stand corrected?

[JoMal]

As far as small market teams go they were by far very successful.  I might as go as far to say they were the most successful small market team not naming the San Antonio Spurs.

I know this reeks of a serious inferiority complex, but what the heck.

Next to the San Antonio Spurs, the Utah Jazz are the most successful small market team in the history of the NBA.

Correct me if I am wrong Ted but I believe the Kings held the league record for most sold out games.  That is what I was basing it off of partially.  Plus, The Jazz have done a good job of staying successful for the last two decades so it's more incentive for the fans to be loyal.  The Kings were still selling out home games when they were failing to make the playoffs.

Though after just looking up population stats Sacramento has twice as many people in the area than Salt Lake City does.....stand corrected?

Both Salt Lake City and Sacramento have in common a wider fan base then their immediate metropolitan area. The Maloofs, for instances, heavily market the Kings in Las Vegas already.

As for the Vegas factor in Stern's choice to working to keep the Kings in Sacramento, that could have played into it, but Vegas certainly was not the Maloof's only option. Albequeque was a very likely option as well.

And wk, most of these negotiations took place before the economy tanked. Right now, it has been very silent regarding the Cal Expo option, but I do know that plans to upgrade the facilities there is are on-going, and if they decide to build an arena along the river next to it, they freeway system would have to be upgraded going from downtown to Cal Expo. That distance is only a mile, maybe less, but the great thinkers of this area decided years ago to NARROW the lanes leaving downtown instead of adding lanes along I-80. Brilliant.

I still wonder why Stern took no visaable (or AS visible) stance for the Sonics. Seattle had the Alaska market, the Idaho market, as well as the state of Washington as a fan base and yet now the NBA is only represented by Portland, which is highly unlikely to attract former Sonic fans for the forseeable future.