No, not the Los Angeles Kings of the National Hockey League, but of the National Basketball Association. I can't do the troubled Sacramento basketball franchise justice by adequately writing about them, but
Yahoo! blogger Dan Devine does a really good job talking about them in his latest post about the team's final (?) home game of the season.
When I wrote about contraction in the National Basketball Association back in February, I did so in passing. When you live in a big market city like Toronto, New York, Los Angeles, or any major city with proud, stable franchises it is easy to take these things for granted. Discussing ideas like contraction or relocation is easy because they are 'ideas', and not 'reality' in the safety and security of the big market major cities. However, I failed to take into account the lives of the people they touch, not just the fans, but the concession stand owners, broadcasters, and boosters. Those small-market teams, which albeit the media brands under one brush, are overlooked by many, but to the city at large they are a part of the family. Without the team, the city loses its relevancy and identity in the eyes of the sports world; relegated from national headlines to the ESPN Sports Ticker, and then from the big red bar at the bottom of the screen to a place on a map or the back of an outdated Trivial Pursuit card, there aren't many more places for cities like Winnipeg, Quebec City, Seattle, and now Sacramento to go.
During the current economic climate, it is easy to dismiss these cities because they lack 'a new building', 'superstars', or 'a good team' and write them off for relocation or contraction. The talent pool in the NBA is too diluted, and the ability to draft marketable playmakers in the days of Bird, Magic, and Jordan are gone. If teams contract, what message will that send? Forget expansion, do not extend the borders of the sport, and play safety first? When teams relocate, as they often do in today's world, what is the overall message? When the going gets tough, get moving to where the money is? Keep growing no matter the cost?
What if the Los Angeles Lakers moved (again)? What if the Bulls took their name, colours, and Michael Jordan statues to Paris to start another playoff campaign (no knock against France because that country is a HIP place)? The answer to that question is "that would NEVER happen because there is too much invested". Sacramento invested 'too much', Seattle invested 'too much', Vancouver invested 'too much'; does being a small-market team dilute the investment of the supporters? I certainly hope not!
If money is a concern, why not adopt a system similar of promotion/relegation by divisions a la the European soccer leagues? Teams that do not perform are relegated to lower divisions within the NBA banner, and those that rise to prominence join the ranks of the elite in the First Division. Throughout the year, hold an all-inclusive league championship, so each team has another trophy to play for on top of their league commitments. In England, for example, the twenty soccer teams in the Premier League play for the League title, but they are also in the national cup competition along with all of England's professional and semi-pro football clubs in an annual knockout tournament. The idea would take some getting used to, and it would change the long-term economic landscape of professional sports in North America, much less in basketball, but all levels of political and economic power must work side by side to make it happen.
I'm sorry to see another NBA franchise go the way of the dollar bill, and I worry Toronto, too, may be forced down this road as well. Nevertheless, as long as the current state of affairs remains the way it is, scenes like the following will be played and replayed all over basketball stadiums in North America.
