Seattle NBA Brand Discussion

[IceCap]

11 minutes ago, sayahh said:

You want to move to Baltimore or Seattle? ?

I've been in Tampa for nearly a year. Both seem like a step up weather-wise

[SFGiants58]

Just now, Ice_Cap said:

I've been in Tampa for nearly a year. Both seem like a step up weather-wise

 

Hey, the Pacific Northwest is really wonderful this time of year. I went to college there (Lewis and Clark College in Portland), and it's a fun place to hang out in during the Spring/Summer. If you ever find yourself in the area, I've got a whole litany of places you could check out.

[IceCap]

Awesomeness  I'm a big fan of the climate out there. It seems perfect for me. I've never been though. It's definitely on the bucket list.

[FightingGoldenDevil]

It needs to be Sonics and it needs to be their old colors. My T-wolves are taking traditional Seattle team colors for whatever reason.

[OnWis97]

I don't think the Wolves are imitating Seattle.  Green and blue are part of their history... yeah, Seahawks, too but not all big league teams can have unique schemes.  In any case, the Sonics would have the (awesome) green and yellow scheme; no confusion with the Wolves.

[4_tattoos]

OT: the A in the Timberwolves new logo bothers me. It's just a godamn upside down V

[hawk36]

On 5/6/2017 at 1:40 PM, Ice_Cap said:

And that means exactly zilch when it comes to the accuracy of the historic record.

Because we all know that 1979 championship actually really happened in OKC. Those are the alternative facts according to the new world order  

[IceCap]

1 minute ago, hawk36 said:

Because we all know that 1979 championship actually really happened in OKC. Those are the alternative facts according to the new world order  

The 1979 NBA Championship was won by a team playing in Seattle that then moved to Oklahoma City. That isn't a hard concept to grasp. Your pitiful attempts at a strawman are showing just how empty your argument is beyond "but my feelings!"

[hawk36]

Just now, Ice_Cap said:

The 1979 NBA Championship was won by a team playing in Seattle that then moved to Oklahoma City. That isn't a hard concept to grasp. Your pitiful attempts at a strawman are showing just how empty your argument is beyond "but my feelings!"

I could say the same for your empty attempts. My point has always been that the city and franchise own equal rights to the history. Again, it's not that difficult a concept to grasp. 

[IceCap]

9 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

I could say the same for your empty attempts.

All I've brought is an appeal to the historical record.
Team X won a championship in City A. Team X moved to City B. They still won the championship. Not City A.

 

These are what we call facts. And they're what I've based my position on. You've resorted to strawman arguments and Donald Trump Twitter terminology because in an actual, full discussion on this topic your position has been exposed as lacking substance. And you know it.

 

9 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

My point has always been that the city and franchise own equal rights to the history. Again, it's not that difficult a concept to grasp. 

Whereas my argument is based in cold, hard facts this nonsense is based on an appeal to feelings over reason. The city of Seattle did not win the 1979 NBA Championship, but you so desperately want it to have, because it fits your fantasy. And so you trot out the same tired arguments ever so often, and it all boils down to the same thing.

Your feelings, your fantasy, is that a city has the rights to something a corporate entity accomplished. It's a nice fantasy. It makes you feel warm and fuzzy as a fan. It's not factually accurate though. And unfortunately for you? The record books are where cold, hard, easily verifiable facts reign supreme.

[upperV03]

On 5/7/2017 at 7:02 PM, hawk36 said:

I could say the same for your empty attempts. My point has always been that the city and franchise own equal rights to the history. Again, it's not that difficult a concept to grasp. 

Dude, give it a rest. You're making yourself look silly at this point, and @Ice_Cap has proven time and time again why your argument is a complete fallacy. And we all know it, including you probably, but you keep pushing your nonsensical argument on us anyways. 

[OnWis97]

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding that we want to claim that the championship was actually won in OKC.  And nobody is saying that.  We know it was won by the Seattle Supersonics.  The history should, and does, reflect that.  Seattle can honor that.  OKC can ignore it.  To whatever degree it "belongs" to Seattle (and I don't dispute that in some sense it does), it is intellectually dishonest to suggest it was won by a team that moves there from Sacramento or a brand new expansion team.  History needs to reflect what happened.  No book will say that a team called the OKC Thunder won that title; that too would be just as dishonest.  But the Seattle team that won it has since become the Thunder.

 

I get that most fans prefer the history shuffle.  But I actually thought they recognized it for what it is.  But the idea that "we" are trying to change history?  It never occurred to me that anyone thought that;  and the idea hurts my head.

[Derek94]

Firstly great thread. Enjoy the deep level discussions from the posters.

 

My argument in these case of the Browns, Hornets, and Sonics of retaining history/uniforms of lost teams is that it is strictly for the benefit of those that matter most - the fans.  Sports is nothing if not entertainment for the public at large, and 99% of every team's fanbase resides within its geographical footprint.

 

The Sonics fans deserve their original franchise name and records because its what's best for them.  It will mend the wounds suffered from losing the team a lot quicker than establishing a new identity, especially knowing an NBA expansion team will be mired in at best average play for years starting out.

 

Five of the last 7 expansion teams (since 1988) have never been to the NBA finals.  The other two lucked out with the Shaquilles, Wades, James, and Howards of the world.

 

I think every opportunity is merited to Seattle to re-integrate the Sonics identity when (and it will be when, not if) they get their team  back.

In addition as a fan who has zero connection with the Sonics other than seeing them play for a decade, I would be very ecstatic to see them return as if they just had a 10 year gap.  I bet a ton of NBA fans if not the vast majority would say so as well.

[Bobster]

Strictly from the historian's perspective you can't lump the Browns together with the Sonics/Thunder and Bobcats/Hornets.  There was an agreement in place when the Browns moved to Baltimore that the team would leave their name and "history" in Cleveland for an expansion team to be awarded when a suitable stadium was built.  The Sonics didn't have any such agreement in place.  Neither did the Hornets when they moved to New Orleans.  Now, apparently, the Pelicans may have ceded their Hornets history to the Bobcats.  But that doesn't change what happened.  The original Hornets are not a part of the Bobcats/Hornets' history.  But on the other side of the coin, Oklahoma City can't really claim the experience of winning a championship for their new city - because it never happened there, although that franchise rightly maintains possession of the championship trophy for 1978-79.

 

It has long been this way in baseball -

 

Boston Braves ->Milwaukee Braves -> Atlanta Braves

Brooklyn Dodgers -> Los Angeles Dodgers

New York Giants -> San Francisco Giants

Philadelphia Athletics -> Kansas City Athletics -> Oakland Athletics

St. Louis Browns -> Baltimore Orioles

Seattle Pilots -> Milwaukee Brewers

Washington Senators -> Minnesota Twins

Washington Senator -> Texas Rangers

 

The Nationals make no claims to the Senators' records.  The Mets don't claim they're the continuation of the NY Giants.  The Brewers include the Pilots, not the Braves.  The franchises are awarded to ownership groups which, sometimes unfortunately, have the inclination to move their team.  They aren't awarded to the cities themselves.

 

[TaylorMade]

19 minutes ago, Bobster said:

Strictly from the historian's perspective you can't lump the Browns together with the Sonics/Thunder and Bobcats/Hornets.  There was an agreement in place when the Browns moved to Baltimore that the team would leave their name and "history" in Cleveland for an expansion team to be awarded when a suitable stadium was built.  The Sonics didn't have any such agreement in place.

 

 

 

[Bobster]

Good for them (the fans), however, it doesn't mean that a new team, or any other team (other than Oklahoma City) can claim that they won that championship, no matter what they have in writing.  The fans can celebrate the memory of it (and rightly so, the 1977-78 and 1978-79 seasons were pretty remarkable), but if a new team starts playing there it doesn't really have any logical claim to it.

 

[TaylorMade]

10 minutes ago, Bobster said:

Good for them (the fans), however, it doesn't mean that a new team, or any other team (other than Oklahoma City) can claim that they won that championship, no matter what they have in writing.  The fans can celebrate the memory of it (and rightly so, the 1977-78 and 1978-79 seasons were pretty remarkable), but if a new team starts playing there it doesn't really have any logical claim to it.

 

 

I was just pointing out that the city of Seattle did have a similar agreement in place. 

[Bobster]

And as I mentioned, good for them then - they can hang the banners and display the trophies for the fans who experienced the championship with the team.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bobster said:

And as I mentioned, good for them then - they can hang the banners and display the trophies for the fans who experienced the championship with the team.

Where do the titles belong, Cleveland or Baltimore?

 

AAFC Championships (4)

1946, 1947, 1948, 1949

NFL Championships (4)

1950, 1954, 1955, 1964

 

[OnWis97]

3 hours ago, Derek94 said:

Firstly great thread. Enjoy the deep level discussions from the posters.

 

My argument in these case of the Browns, Hornets, and Sonics of retaining history/uniforms of lost teams is that it is strictly for the benefit of those that matter most - the fans.  

I am a fan and shuffling history does not benefit me.  It might benefit fans that have minimal interest in the history of the sport but not those that are fascinated by what's been going on for the last several decades.

 

And I am not just a fan.  I am a fan who lost a team when I was 18.  An then I got an expansion team.  And I have no interest in the league telling me that my current team is the same team as my old team.  Because it is not true.  

 

I know a lot of fans feel as you do but it's a bit misleading to say that History Musical Chairs is benefits the fans.  It benefits some fans.