- 22,262
- 11,072
Possibly, but in terms of TV market size, Sacramento and Seattle are in the same bracket. So shouldn't be too big of an issue.Again, I'll forgive your ignorance..... Sacramento has ZERO tax dollars involved in this deal.Because the city of Sacramento sucks doesn't mean the people of Sacramento should pay tax dollars so an NBA team can be there.
It seriously makes no business sense for the Kings to be in Sacramento over Seattle.
The NBA isn't going to expand to Seattle because NBA owners aren't going to want to divvy the pie up more than it is.
Business wise? Keeping the Kings here would raise ALL NBA franchise price tags across the board since it is a small market (Jazz, Pacers, OKC, Grizz, the majority of the NBA). Having a team worth ~$525M in Sacramento>Seattle (especially in 1-sport town>4-sport town)
Having a team Seattle will increase the soon to be negotiated new NBA TV deal
Especially when having a team in Sacramento worth $525M, and raising EVERY single franchise's value>>a bump in TV revenue (that is already expected)
I guess it just comes down to me not understanding why you are trying to convince me that I should let go of the Kings.
There is nothing no matter how insightful it is I can type on this message board to change that and as a true fan that's the way it should be.
But from the outside looking in they should move.
Sacramento does deserve a team more than Indianapolis and Charlotte though.. Seattle should get the Pacers or Bobcats
That's the move that should be made.
Last edited: