Send them to seattle and rename them the sonics. problem solved

I think OKC own the Sonics name/history

OKC co-owned the name and history, but if Seattle didn't have another team in the NBA within a certain time period (think it was 3 years) then Seattle can't use the Supersonics name or history. But they could buy back the name.

I'd prefer to see the Kings stay in Sac town. Hate teams re-locating!

It's actually Ironic that Seattle have been suggested as a destination. Guess who is the head of the NBA relocation committee? Clay Bennett owner of the Oklahoma Thunder and the guy who is responsible in moving the sonics out of Seattle in the first place.

Apparently the Maloofs preferred destination of moving the Kings to Anaheim is going to face some strong resistance by the Clippers and the Lakers so this move might not be a done deal yet.

Honda Centre in Anaheim needs an NBA team.. I dont think it would take away too much from the LA teams tbh, all the tourists will still want to see the Lakers and Griffin.

Seattle, St Louis, Vacnouver, and Kentucky have all been calling out for a NBA team. Seattle and Vancouver would have to make a strong case though because of their past NBA teams have floundered there commercially. Although I do know the problem with the Sonics was more due to the fact that the team needed a new arena and the city voted in a referendum refusing to fund it.

But I would still count them as more of a priority then having a third team in Los Angeles or another team in the Bay area.

What about a team in Las Vegas?

Head coached by Grisham

Heard murmurs months ago about San Diego perhaps?

everyone who lives in vegas is poor

Just in case anyone is interested there is an excellent documentary called Sonicsgate that covers Seattle losing the Sonics. Here is the address:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Dp20ydm1E

Kentucky would have a great chance IMO.

The state is basketball mad, as you can see in any UK or UL game!

Maybe base the team out of Louisville?

But then of course, if the team is based in Louisville, this may deter a lot of UK Fans from nearby Lexington.

Vancouver is't likely. Many high-ranking people happen to be involved with the Canucks ice hockey team, and they fear that an NBA team would threaten to diminish their already well establish brand.
Basically saying, Vancouver is a HOCKEY TOWN.

I think Seattle is the front runner, because Stern has publicly stated that allbeit the lack of a major Arena (which Seattle now has), the City was great for Basketball.

Las Vegas will never happen. Too much competition with other entertainment options. Plus its not a fmaily-orientated city, and that is where you want to build a team -- to attract youthful fans and their families.

A dark horse that everyone should watch out for is Kansas city

Very nice facilities and by all accounts their MLB and NFL teams are thriving there.

I know it would be weird considering the Kings relocated to Sac town FROM Kansas City

Kings not going anywhere deal between maloof's and KJ (mayor) done 3 weeks ago team staying and new arena to be built. Maloofs have already committed to pay millions for the new arena and if you youtube this you'll see George Maloof trying to hold back tears when the agreement was announced.

Is this the same deal the original post is suggesting the Maloofs have backed out of, or has another deal been done?

Pretty sure the new stadium deal was mainly handled by the NBA due to bad blood between the Maloof's and city officals.

So it appears the Maloof's want to find a way out of the deal so they can move the team.
Or possibly sell, they may get a better price if the new owner can move the team anywhere they want.