RealGM

The city went on to say it will seek state legislation to block Anaheim from issuing any inducements to lure the Kings -- unless Sacramento is first assured that the Kings will pay off the estimated $77 million they owe the city.

The dramatic turn of events comes hours before the Anaheim City Council is scheduled to vote on issuing $75 million in bonds.

The Maloofs just dropped many many notches in my book. Suck up money from one city, use it and than skip town so another city can give more more. Garbage.

For some reason I feel like some 11th hour event will save the day on this one. It just makes so little sense to move the team closer to LA. There will be zero hardcore fans if they move.

Yeah that's fail, and a knee-jerk short term reaction. And isn't that arena quite old? I drove by it a few times last Fall down in LA, looks a bit run-down.
Without putting much thought into it, doesn't San Diego make more sense for a move south if you are insistent on staying in Cali?

I agree with your 11th hour assessment

Yeah, it is very weak that they would leave Sacramento. However that arena is outdated, old, and generating little revenue for them. Still, I'm definitely NOT condoning what they are doing at all.

And of course the move to Anaheim is all about money. That arena was updated (or something, I read?) and it has like 90 luxury boxes compared to 30-some for Arco Arena. Plus they would apparently get some huge TV deal. And in the article I read, it talks about how many more millions of fans are within 1 hour of driving distance in Anaheim, compared to the much smaller number of fans in Sacramento.

Not sure who would save this at the last minute. $tern and the NBA gave up years ago, and it sounds like the city of Sacto isn't going to do anything either.

Ugh, not good when teams move around like this...

College Wolf wrote:
That is a such a bull@#$t measure. Yeah there are a ton of fans in driving distance. How many of those millions are already within driving distance of 2 teams. The NBA already ruined two good markets with this thinking (Charlotte and Seattle).

The biggest thing in SacTo's favor is how mad the Lakers are about it. Do you screw with a marquee team like that? Besides the stadium and initial transfer heist the NBA needs to generate new fans out of a move. It seems like this one just feeds one team by sucking fans off another.

The NBA traveling circus is packing up and moving to another destination, again. How exactly do they plan to get Lakers fans to become Anaheim Royals fans? I wonder how long it will be before they are in Seattle, Vancouver, Kansas City, or Las Vegas...

They should just contract 2 teams and end this nonsense.

roundhouse wrote:
I'm with you there. Take out the Hornets and Bobcats!

How is Memphis doing these days?

Normally I'd worry about the Wolves being contracted, but we have seen fans support this team in the past with and without Garnett. It's not like Memphis or Charlotte, where simply no one cares or has ever cared. The Wolves attendance has only faltered in the last 4-5 years. The rest of our existence we have recieved excellent fan support, relatively speaking.

However, putting together a promising season next year is crucial. Rubio ought to help generate some buzz as well...I just hope fans stick with him/us when he has an underwhelming rookie season given his age/experience.

Aside from the arena thing, the Kings have great fans. This is a pretty sucky situation for them and I feel bad. It's not like us. We have some of the worst, seriously fucked up fans I have ever seen on so many levels.

Bottom line for horrible Minny fans: winning is everything. That is why no one cares about Kevin Love. Recall when the Garnett-led Wolves were playing poorly. Fans turned on the team as soon as our playoff run ended, which included a few more seasons of Garnett. Crickets started in Target Center then, while KG was still here.

WW hits on some solid points, no doubt.

However, almost everywhere fans want winners. But in markets with nothing else (e.g. Green Bay with the Packers, Sacramento with the Kings, etc) fans will support those teams through thick and thin no matter what.

I remember ready a study a little while back, showing that Minneapolis was easily one of the worst over-saturated markets in the US for sports. The metro population size simply cannot support all our pro teams, semi-pro teams, NCAA sports, and the Lynx. There just aren't enough people, and too many sports options. And this doesn't even mention other entertainment options either.

That's why fans will support winners, and teams that are dysfunctional will quickly be forgotten.

Not saying WW is wrong about anything. I just wanted to expound upon the above.

I can't disagree with you, Wally. I remember being shocked & astounded by the number of "Timberwolves fans" that came out of the cracks during the 03-04 season.

Related tangent - KFAN talks as little NBA basketball/hometown team basketball as any market there is, IMO. It is pathetic. Football dominates the twin cities sportstalk 12 months out of the year, which has always blown my mind.

Maybe its because Minnesota is a big hockey state or something, but everywhere else I go there are NBA fans everywhere, talking basketball, watching basketball at bars, wearing NBA apparel, etc. In Minnesota basketball fans are almost scoffed at to a certain extent. It sucks.

College Wolf wrote:
Very true, Re: winners. The same can be said for any team. you are right. Good points also on the small market support, hadn't thought of it that way. I just continue to be shocked by what happened at that Boston game. It was pathetic. So I will continue to take shots at the horrible form the non-diehard general fan showed.

As far as the Twin Cities' inability to support 4 sports teams....studies show that I disagree. We have seen quality support of 4 sports teams in the past. The Wolves are just an embarrassment at the moment. If they were to turn a corner that arguement would quickly be forgotten. The Wolves went about it wrong. A team in a 4 team city cannot sustain a 5 year rebuilding project (along the lines of CW's point) and maintain its fanbase. We should have taken the Mavericks approach and swapped out vets year after year. Even with Rubio and others, it will take awhile to get all the fans back on the bandwagon.

So I think the study has merits, but it's conclusions are incorrectly implying causation from loose correlation (based on your comments). It isn't becuase of market size, but moreso better performing local teams/entertainment options, hence our pathetic, yet somewhat understandable bandwagon nature. If all of our teams were doing well, it would not be an issue, as we have seen in the past.

I am interested to see how supportive fans will be of the Vikings this year.

BonK wrote:
So annoying. I flip to KFAN sometimes on the way to work for the Powertrip show. It's always Vikings, Vikings, Vikings, year round, even in April. I change it after 3 minutes. Then Common man is Twins Twins Twins. Then Barriero talks aports maybe half the time. PA and Barriero probably talk Wolves the most, though.

It is very odd, I agree.

Almost as odd as no sports stores in the area carrying any Wolves merchandise. Anyone notice that?

WallyWorld wrote:
If definitely sucks. Did the Wolves get more coverage back in the day when we were always making the playoffs? I didn't listen to sports radio back then so I don't know. Plus in this age of technology and whatnot, the times are definitely different. But yeah, all Vikings all the time sucks.

And no, there is almost no merchandise for the Wolves anywhere. Hell, there's hardly any at the Target Center!

WallyWorld wrote:
The study definitely showed that there is just not enough disposal income to steadily and consistently support all the sports teams we have all the time (and don't forget about NCAA either! Or semi-pro teams and other sports.) That is a fact.

So I guess what I am saying is that when the team(s) are bad, the fans will quickly stop going to games and supporting them, just because their are other options. That's the main point of what I am getting at. If all our pro sports teams are really good at the same time, they will have enough support. You are totally right about that. But when things start to turn for the worse, the support will leave more quickly than it does in other, less saturated markets.

But I agree that when any given team is good, they will be supported. If the Wolves are in the playoffs, the support wouldn't still be like New Orleans averaging 12,000 fans per game (or whatever number they are at.)

I probably could have worded my own analysis above a little better to clarify.

True. Gotchya. Studies show we are on the same page. People will spend the extra money, or find the money when the team is doing well. But ebbs and flows obviously prevent 4 blockbuster franchises in fixed time periods.

In hindsight, it makes the idea of the Wolves rebuilding for so long all the more painful. A smart GM/owner with foresight would have recognized the Wolves' need to add vets and win now at the expense of long term "youth" movement nonesense, especially in light of the Vikes playoff run in 2009/Favre + Vikes actually having loyal fans, the new Twin Stadium, Tubby Smith's hiring which pretty much shot Gopher bball into the limelight before he started sucking, a new Gopher Football stadium, the Wild drawing a crowd, Gopher hockey successes...etc.

It's no wonder the Wolves can't sell a ticket. Enough rebuilding. Heck the Wolves almost cant afford to keep their pick this year and add another infant to the mix. We need to trade for some winning vets in the worst way.