orangefaniniowa

Seattle NBA Brand Discussion

189 posts in this topic

On 2017-04-27 at 9:16 AM, sayahh said:

Just had this thought: What if one day the Thunder moved back to Seattle?

 

On 2017-04-27 at 9:03 PM, Quillz said:

Now that Durant is gone and the Thunder are only going downhill, this will probably happen sooner rather than later.

 

Maybe one day the NBA will expand the way the NHL seems to be doing. The Thunder move back to Seattle and OKC can get a(nother) new team. Basically a Ravens/Browns equivalent.

Not gonna happen.

 

First, the Thunder aren't moving back. They have ownership committed to OKC and they have a state of the art arena. 

 

Secondly, moving the Thunder back to Seattle and giving OKC an expansion team is terribly convoluted way of solving this issue. If the NBA wants teams in both Seattle and OKC? The easiest way would be to just give Seattle an expansion team. 

 

 

On 2017-04-26 at 8:30 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

Wasn't there some deal where if Seattle got a team back within x years then OKC would hand them back the Sonics brand?  

 

I'm assuming that x is long passed, so would Sonics even be an option?

The deal was Seattle could get the Sonics name and records back if the city got an expansion team within five years of the Sonics moving to OKC. 

 

It's been longer than five years so the Thunder aren't required to give the name and records up as per the agreement. 

That being said? It's not like the Thunder reference their history as the Sonics anyway. So they would probably hand it all over willingly. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-04-26 at 2:52 PM, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

cxe7hh6lwjtpdhcoyiuc064sp.gif

Unpopular opinion. This logo sucks. It's a super generic typeface with a city skyline in a basketball. "SuperSonics" conveys speed, but the logo is so static. 

 

The 1967-70 logo is the best the team ever had across two cities, and it's not even close. 

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History cannot be sold or traded. The Seattle Supersonics won the NBA title in 1979. They later moved to Oklahoma City. No amount of deals or trading can change that fact. If it can, I will buy my dad's history (we have the same name) and claim Vietnam War service on my resumes and applications, though I was born in 1969.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

moving the Thunder back to Seattle and giving OKC an expansion team is terribly convoluted way of solving this issue. If the NBA wants teams in both Seattle and OKC? The easiest way would be to just give Seattle an expansion team. 

 

True, but that's what the American League did when it was battling the threat posed by the Continental League by entering that league's cities.  Rather than putting an expansion team in Minnesota, the A.L. moved an existing team, the Washington Senators, there; and it put an expansion team in Washington.

 

The Senators' owner Calvin Griffith wanted to get out of Washington, and the league accommodated him.  So it will all come down to what best suits the desires of whoever owns the Thunder at the time the Seattle question is addressed by the NBA.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, smzimbabwe said:

History cannot be sold or traded. The Seattle Supersonics won the NBA title in 1979. They later moved to Oklahoma City. No amount of deals or trading can change that fact. If it can, I will buy my dad's history (we have the same name) and claim Vietnam War service on my resumes and applications, though I was born in 1969.

Yeah, regardless of what's actually decided? The organisation that is the Oklahoma City Thunder will always be the team that won the 1979 NBA Championship.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Unpopular opinion. This logo sucks. It's a super generic typeface with a city skyline in a basketball. "SuperSonics" conveys speed, but the logo is so static. 

 

The 1967-70 logo is the best the team ever had across two cities, and it's not even close. 

I agree about the font. Bringing back this logo would be okay, but there are definitely some changes that should be made to it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Unpopular opinion. This logo sucks. It's a super generic typeface with a city skyline in a basketball.

Which means it would fit right in in today's league:

137_brooklyn-nets-primary-2013.png

qhhir6fj8zp30f33s7sfb4yw0.png

4578_toronto_raptors-primary-2016.png

5462_los_angeles_clippers-primary-2016.png

 

___________________________________________________________

 

Was Seattle ever officially referred to as "Sonics?" I know their last two logos dropped the Super from the name but I was just curious what they were officially referred to as. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mr.nascar13 said:

Which means it would fit right in in today's league:

137_brooklyn-nets-primary-2013.png

qhhir6fj8zp30f33s7sfb4yw0.png

4578_toronto_raptors-primary-2016.png

5462_los_angeles_clippers-primary-2016.png

 

___________________________________________________________

 

Was Seattle ever officially referred to as "Sonics?" I know their last two logos dropped the Super from the name but I was just curious what they were officially referred to as. 

None of those are what I would call "good."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

None of those are what I would call "good."

Oh, I completely agree. Just saying it would fit in based on the recent trend of slapping a default font on a ball and calling it a day. For me, the ideal situation would be updating the logo from the mid-90s:

g98gtsog4k7deexgpo81fi0vn.png

... but the WNBA's Storm already kind of did that:

3580_seattle_storm-primary-2016.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, mr.nascar13 said:

Which means it would fit right in in today's league:

137_brooklyn-nets-primary-2013.png

qhhir6fj8zp30f33s7sfb4yw0.png

4578_toronto_raptors-primary-2016.png

5462_los_angeles_clippers-primary-2016.png

 

___________________________________________________________

 

Was Seattle ever officially referred to as "Sonics?" I know their last two logos dropped the Super from the name but I was just curious what they were officially referred to as. 

They have always officially been the "Supersonics." Sonics was just a shorthand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Quillz said:

They have always officially been the "Supersonics." Sonics was just a shorthand.

I grew up just north of Seattle, and they were always called the "Sonics". "Let's go to the Sonics game", "The Sonics are playing the Lakers tonight", etc. In 5th grade, we played for the city championship, and the winner got to go to a Sonics game. We lost, which made for the saddest team photo ever, taken right after the game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, smzimbabwe said:

History cannot be sold or traded. The Seattle Supersonics won the NBA title in 1979. They later moved to Oklahoma City. No amount of deals or trading can change that fact. If it can, I will buy my dad's history (we have the same name) and claim Vietnam War service on my resumes and applications, though I was born in 1969.

 

Cleveland Browns and Charlotte Hornets have already set the precedent...but you're right in that these two only have 3 year gaps (1996-1998; 2002-2004).

 

Seattle is looking at least 10 years of no history (2009-2019) assuming they get their new team for the 2019-2020 season.

That'll be hard to explain for future historians 50 years from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Derek94 said:

 

Cleveland Browns and Charlotte Hornets have already set the precedent...but you're right in that these two only have 3 year gaps (1996-1998; 2002-2004).

 

Seattle is looking at least 10 years of no history (2009-2019) assuming they get their new team for the 2019-2020 season.

That'll be hard to explain for future historians 50 years from now.

It's funny. All the players are different, all the owners might be different and they're playing in a different city. But they are the same team. I never understood that. Not picking on anyone personally, just an observation. Sure, even if you've never met your great - grandfather doesn't mean that you aren't related, but this is sports. And same goes with any sport of business that is completely different and no longer attached with the pay in any shape our form, e.g. bank mergers that basically discarded everything, included the name. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Yeah, regardless of what's actually decided? The organisation that is the Oklahoma City Thunder will always be the team that won the 1979 NBA Championship.

 

6 hours ago, smzimbabwe said:

History cannot be sold or traded. The Seattle Supersonics won the NBA title in 1979. They later moved to Oklahoma City. No amount of deals or trading can change that fact. If it can, I will buy my dad's history (we have the same name) and claim Vietnam War service on my resumes and applications, though I was born in 1969.

 

If history cannot be sold or traded, nor can it be transferred. The Seattle SuperSonics, who won the 1979 NBA Championship, ceased to exist in 2008. The Oklahoma City Thunder have never won an NBA title.

 

History in sports is not real history. It's not like the south can buy the rights to the civil war and say they won.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TaylorMade said:

 

 

If history cannot be sold or traded, nor can it be transferred. The Seattle SuperSonics, who won the 1979 NBA Championship, ceased to exist in 2008. The Oklahoma City Thunder have never won an NBA title.

 

History in sports is not real history. It's not like the south can buy the rights to the civil war and say they won.

The team that won the 1979 NBA Championship didn't cease to exist. They moved.

 

As to your analogy...you're right. The south can't buy the rights to the civil war and say they won. Just like a Seattle NBA expansion team founded in, say, 2019, can't claim to have won the 1979 NBA Championship.

 

And there is no "sports history" as a separate thing from "real history." It's ALL "real" history. The study and examination of what has happened.

The NFL saying the Browns team founded in 1999 are the Browns of old or the NBA claiming that the Charlotte Bobcats turned Hornets are the original Hornets doesn't change history. It's nothing more than scribbling over the factual record for the sake of positive PR.

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

The team that won the 1979 NBA Championship didn't cease to exist. They moved.

 

As to your analogy...you're right. The south can't buy the rights to the civil war and say they won. Just like a Seattle NBA expansion team founded in, say, 2019, can't claim to have won the 1979 NBA Championship.

I would have to disagree to some extent. As long as a team turned to the original city with the same moniker - keeping their records, they could still reference that they have won a title in the past. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, worcat said:

I would have to disagree to some extent. As long as a team turned to the original city with the same moniker - keeping their records, they could still reference that they have won a title in the past. 

I disagree. No amount of NFL record book trickery will make the current Cleveland Browns the same team Jim Brown played for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

I disagree. No amount of NFL record book trickery will make the current Cleveland Browns the same team Jim Brown played for.

It's not the same team Jim Brown played for but they are still the "Cleveland Browns". I think it's a tricky debate with alot of "what ifs" attached to it.

 

In a scenario like this:

1) If the Miami Marlins moved to Cuba and Miami was allowed to keep the Marlins name and the statistical records, then the Cuba team would essentially become a new franchise with no history. If Miami were to be awarded an expansion team 5 years later, they could bring back the Marlins moniker and history and still be the Miami Marlins.

 

In scenario 1) As in real life with the Marlins changing from Florida to Miami, no one says the Miami Marlins never won the world series. If they changed back to Florida, nothing would have changed. While Florida to Miami is a little different since they still kept the same roster, I can see where this may not be the same debate but in 5 years, lets be honest, would any of those players be on the Marlins anyway? :D

 

2) If the Miami Marlins moved to Cuba and Miami was only allowed to keep the Marlins name, not the statistical records, then the Cuba team would keep all historical statistics. If Miami were to be awarded an expansion team 5 years later, they could bring back the Marlins moniker but hit reset on any franchise statistics.

 

In scenario 2) Florida/Miami Marlins would still be known in history for winning the world series X amount of times as you can't re-write history and say the 1997 World Series Champions Florida Marlins Cuba Missles. Miami could celebrate having the history of winning the WS in that respective city however, with Cuba holding historical records rights, they would be able to choose to honor those former teams or players for their contributions to the history of the franchise. This is similar to lets say, what the Phoenix Coyotes do with retired Winnipeg Jets players. Those players never played for the Coyotes but they still honor the Jets retired numbers/players.

 

3) If the Miami Marlins moved to Cuba and Miami was not allowed to keep the Marlins name or statistical records but were awarded an expansion team 5 years later, then unfortunately Miami would have to hit reset on the entire brand.

 

In scenario 3) This sucks for most die hard fan of the old fan base. The old want to old onto what was "theirs" and hate owners/league for destroying their favorite brand. While new fans see this as an opportunity to start fresh and move on from an unfortunate event. Miami Marlins would only be a foot note to the city of Miami and the state of Florida. 

 

Any scenario you choose, there's one thing fans must choose. S1) Do you follow the original "team" to the new location? S2) Do you wait for Miami to get an expansion team and get your beloved Marlins back? S3) A: See S1. B: Do you hate baseball for never being able to be a Marlins fan again since Cuba isn't using that moniker and that they have locked away the Marlins identity? C: Do you chalk it up as a loss and just be glad you have baseball back?

 

Food for thought.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I owned the team, scenario 2.  If I were a fan, scenario 1.  If I was around Miami but didn't root for or care about the Marlins, then scenario 3.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sayahh said:

If I owned the team, scenario 2.  If I were a fan, scenario 1.  If I was around Miami but didn't root for or care about the Marlins, then scenario 3.

Perfect response.

 

I think what I wanted to get across is, it's different to each fan and how they react to their team leaving and coming back (if they are even that lucky).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now