Luingus221

A rant about the Seattle SuperSonics

Recommended Posts

I'm not seeing how the older (1970s) logo is better than the 1980s logo.  That 1970s logo just screams 1970s.  They'd have to, at the very least, modernize it (and include yellow).

 

The 1980s logo is not exciting, but it's at least aesthetically pleasing.  It's also not as boring as a couple of other primaries (the Nets, for example).

 

Ultimately, I'd hope they stick with the color scheme and modernize the 1980s logo or come up with something new like the Winnipeg Jets or Charlotte Hornets.

Share this post


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

They ( the city) cannot afford a third venue. The Yum! Center is not even eight years old but and refinanced it less than ten months ago and  owe $400 million on it. Their bond rating cannot handle it.

Freedom Hall sits on state land, so if the state decides to pay for it, they'll have to also face pressure from Lexington to replace Rupp Arena too.

I'd actually forgotten that they'd built it... that was the one they were going to build had that NBA team (the Grizzlies, if I remember) had moved there.  Okay.  So they upgrade that a little, and bam - NBA ready.  Kentucky Colonels, here we come again.

 

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

If they come back, could they please not resurrect this boring AF logo:

 

cxe7hh6lwjtpdhcoyiuc064sp.gif

 

I'd much prefer an update of this (as it ties in with the nickname):

 

ztmj6x7hdosw8gu49wa64doag.gif

 

I'd honestly expect something else entirely from either of these rather than resurrecting an old look.  The name'll be the Sonics, the colors will be green and gold, but the logo will be something new and updated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mac the Knife said:

I'd actually forgotten that they'd built it... that was the one they were going to build had that NBA team (the Grizzlies, if I remember) had moved there.  Okay.  So they upgrade that a little, and bam - NBA ready.  Kentucky Colonels, here we come again.

 

 

I'd honestly expect something else entirely from either of these rather than resurrecting an old look.  The name'll be the Sonics, the colors will be green and gold, but the logo will be something new and updated.

Justin Wilkinson's kick ass work would be my vote: https://www.behance.net/gallery/30682229/Seattle-Sonics-Identity-Concept

 

or mine: https://www.behance.net/gallery/54865065/Seattle-Supersonics-Concept

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2018 at 4:08 PM, LMU said:

The problem with the NBA right now is that there are very few teams in markets that have arena/market situations that are at the point where relocation is necessary...

 

The Pelicans may be another possibility with the post-Katrina market size and the remaining to be seen fallout from Benson's death.

 

1. Post-Katrina? Katrina was 13 years ago.  Market size is (and has been) stabilized at a new normal from any effects of Katrina.  A whole slew of millennials and hipsters have moved into New Orleans (proper) since then, with lots of gentrification and inflating of housing prices (also affected by short term rentals)...  With a decent team, Pelicans HOME attendance was 25th in the NBA this year, and more telling, 95.6% of arena capacity.

 

2. Tom Benson may have died, but GAYLE Benson is a very youthful 71.  There will be no "fallout" from Benson's death; like most savvy businessmen, Tom set up the franchise transitions perfectly via trusts and such so that no "inheritance taxes" came into play, and they are squarely in the hands of his widow.  And while the Saints were Tom's pride and joy, SHE was the one who prodded him to purchase the Pelicans for the city, and had a lot to do with the selection of their color scheme and branding. The Pels are more her "baby"-- heck, since's Tom's funeral, she's gone to basically EVERY game and was sitting behind basket COURTSIDE -- not in a suite-- for the 1st two playoff games in Portland. The dowager queen has even been seen wearing a Pelicans HOODIE, for crying out loud:

 

img_3516.jpg?itok=XSRV9vRv

 

Last week, she sent a letter to other NFL owners confirming her commitment to New Orleans and ownership of the Saints until she dies.  According to the organization, she is set to provide a similar letter to NBA owners re: the Pelicans as well. But she has already committed to them in print:

 

So what did she think of the reports immediately after Tom Benson’s death that the Pelicans would be put up for sale?

“It’s disappointing to think that somebody would think I would mess up his legacy, but I guess everybody has their opinion,” Gayle Benson said. “But I would never sell it, no.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2018 at 11:39 PM, the admiral said:

Where's the talent for more teams? NBA fans crap their pants if their teams draft outside the top five because there's apparently no talent left to draft here in like the second-most popular sport on the planet.

As Dave Berri would put it, it's the short supply of really tall people at work.  I mean, if relatives need somebody to reach up for something off a high shelf, it's like they look at me and see Shaq.  I'm 5'9" and not even the tallest person in the family, for reference (two cousins are 6-footers who briefly played college football, one for Iowa State, the other for Air Force).

That, IMO, is a stumbling block basketball just simply has and can't do much about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2018 at 12:39 AM, the admiral said:

Where's the talent for more teams? NBA fans crap their pants if their teams draft outside the top five because there's apparently no talent left to draft here in like the second-most popular sport on the planet.

 

I remember watching the drafts in the early 90s (Shaq, Chris Webber / Penny, etc) and they were deeeep.  Every lottery team got a good player, and even later in the 1st round it (at least to my young sports-crazy mind) seemed like the guys were either studs or at least had a shot.

 

One difference is that these guys were college juniors or even seniors, so they were 1) bigger/stronger, 2) more experienced, 3) at least slightly more mature, and 4) old enough to actually (legally) hang with their teammates after games.

 

The league has done this to themselves by not having good minimum requirements for entry and/or a good developmental system.  An age limit or post-HS-grad limit (like the NFL sorta has) might make it better, or another league - whether independent or league-sponsored, where players could sign (AND GET PAID) at any time (direct from HS or after a year of NCAA) and play PRIOR TO ANY ONE TEAM HOLDING THEIR RIGHTS while developing might be better.

 

 

Rag on The Process all you want, but the league did it to themselves.  If you don't have the top pick or two, you have nothing.  There's only one way to get those picks, hence the process:  

120815_sam-hinkie_1200.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2018 at 5:11 AM, BringBackTheVet said:

 

I remember watching the drafts in the early 90s (Shaq, Chris Webber / Penny, etc) and they were deeeep.  Every lottery team got a good player, and even later in the 1st round it (at least to my young sports-crazy mind) seemed like the guys were either studs or at least had a shot.

 

One difference is that these guys were college juniors or even seniors, so they were 1) bigger/stronger, 2) more experienced, 3) at least slightly more mature, and 4) old enough to actually (legally) hang with their teammates after games.

 

The league has done this to themselves by not having good minimum requirements for entry and/or a good developmental system.  An age limit or post-HS-grad limit (like the NFL sorta has) might make it better, or another league - whether independent or league-sponsored, where players could sign (AND GET PAID) at any time (direct from HS or after a year of NCAA) and play PRIOR TO ANY ONE TEAM HOLDING THEIR RIGHTS while developing might be better.

 

 

Rag on The Process all you want, but the league did it to themselves.  If you don't have the top pick or two, you have nothing.  There's only one way to get those picks, hence the process:  

120815_sam-hinkie_1200.jpg

I like the solution Bill Simmons had on his pod last week.  If you get a top-three pick you are locked into a 4 or later the next season.  He specifically cited the Bennett/Wiggins picks in consecutive years with only a year gap after the Kyrie pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just go back to the 1985 draft lottery rules. Everyone has an equal shot at first overall, and it's better theatre!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LMU said:

I like the solution Bill Simmons had on his pod last week.  If you get a top-three pick you are locked into a 4 or later the next season.  He specifically cited the Bennett/Wiggins picks in consecutive years with only a year gap after the Kyrie pick.

 

That's actually not turrible.  I could get down with something like that.  Maybe also extend the lottery to the 7th and 8th seeds, and group teams, so 1-x have equal chances, x+1-y have equal, y+1-x have equal, ... you get the point.

 

IIRC, Shaq and Penny (via Webber) were consecutive #1s too.  Obv the Sixers did it this year, but via trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LMU said:

I like the solution Bill Simmons had on his pod last week.  If you get a top-three pick you are locked into a 4 or later the next season.  He specifically cited the Bennett/Wiggins picks in consecutive years with only a year gap after the Kyrie pick.

 

That's better than his other idea that he never shuts up about - the "entertaining as hell tournament" where the teams who don't make the playoffs play a single elimination tournament for the draft order and number one overall pick. If you think tanking for the number one overall pick is bad imagine 6, 7, 8 seed type teams trying to miss the playoffs so they can play in the draft pick tournament instead! Imagine veteran players giving a :censored: about getting some kid in the draft, enough to go out and bust their ass in 4 extra games. Imagine an upcoming UFA giving a :censored: about getting some kid in the draft for a team he's not going to be with. 

 

 

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Just go back to the 1985 draft lottery rules. Everyone has an equal shot at first overall, and it's better theatre!

 

Incentivizes missing the playoffs too much, which is already a problem for the NBA. Why try to get into the playoffs and get crushed as an 8 seed when you have an equal chance at the best pick? A one and done pick rule is the best idea I can think of, the NHL should've instituted it on the Oilers after Hall, Nugent-Hopkins, Yakupov, McDavid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other, completely different option, is for NBA teams to completely ape soccer (they're halfway there with sponsorship) and build player academies. Instead of having shoe companies, AAU and collegiate athletics corrupt children, the NBA can cut out the middlemen and just do it themselves.

 

And, to be honest, being part of a Sacramento Kings academy would likely be far more enriching for the basketball development of a 15-year-old than playing for Adidas for some guy with money from undetermined locations. And also, the NBA could get into the whole soccer system of transactions that I'll likely never understand, but it does seems like players like Neymar and Messi are more empowered than their American megastar counterparts.

Share this post


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

The other, completely different option, is for NBA teams to completely ape soccer (they're halfway there with sponsorship) and build player academies. Instead of having shoe companies, AAU and collegiate athletics corrupt children, the NBA can cut out the middlemen and just do it themselves.

 

And, to be honest, being part of a Sacramento Kings academy would likely be far more enriching for the basketball development of a 15-year-old than playing for Adidas for some guy with money from undetermined locations. And also, the NBA could get into the whole soccer system of transactions that I'll likely never understand, but it does seems like players like Neymar and Messi are more empowered than their American megastar counterparts.

 

You mean the 15-year-old's rights would be owned by the Kings, or he's just playing on a team or in a league that they run?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

You mean the 15-year-old's rights would be owned by the Kings, or he's just playing on a team or in a league that they run?

 

Yes, and yes. They recruit and sign younger teenagers, put them through academies, and then either extend or sell their contract rights at some point in time. I'm not sure exactly what the international soccer model is, but my working assumptions are the model for what a future NCAA- and, after next year, AAU-less NBA could look like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would there be a draft for the teenagers, or would NBA teams be recruiting middle-schoolers?  I can't come to terms with a minor having his rights controlled by a team.  Many of these kids don't have the parental guidance needed for that decision (which as minors they'd require) and/or would be absolutely fleeced by agents.  I don't think it's possible at 15-16 to make an intelligent decision about going to college or joining the Kings kiddie camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Would there be a draft for the teenagers, or would NBA teams be recruiting middle-schoolers?  I can't come to terms with a minor having his rights controlled by a team.  Many of these kids don't have the parental guidance needed for that decision (which as minors they'd require) and/or would be absolutely fleeced by agents.  I don't think it's possible at 15-16 to make an intelligent decision about going to college or joining the Kings kiddie camp.

 

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_system

 

Quote

Most youth systems attached exclusively to one club are often called youth academies. In a youth academy, a club will sign multiple players at a very young age and teach them football skills required to play at that club's standard.[4] Clubs are often restricted to recruiting locally based youngsters, but some larger clubs such as Arsenal, Real Madrid and Chelsea have recruited foreign talent. Leading to the formation of specialist recruiters such as the La Liga Youth Brokerage, which started in 2016. [5]

 

Many of the larger clubs in Europe such as Ajax and Feyenoord in the Netherlands, FC Barcelona and Real Madrid in Spain, Benfica, Sporting CP (which has developed two Ballon d'Or recipients, Luis Figo and Cristiano Ronaldo) and Porto in Portugal, and Manchester United, Liverpool and West Ham in England, FC Bayern Munich and Schalke 04 in Germany, among many others, are regarded as having some of the finest youth academies and have produced many players regarded as some of the best in world football. Other clubs such as Brazilian club Grêmio and São Paulo, Espanyol in Spain, Atalanta of Italy and English clubs Leeds United, Middlesbrough, Watford, Aston Villa and West Ham United, while not as financially successful as others, have a world class academy. West Ham's youth academy is known as The Academy of Football and has produced many English talents that have gone on to play with larger clubs in the Premier League.[6]

 

Another example is lower league clubs who have produced high quality players through the academy and sold them to keep the club running. A prime example of this is Crewe Alexandra who under Dario Gradi and his staff nurtured players into high quality players such as Danny Murphy and Dean Ashton and sold them.

 

An alternative name for a youth academy is "Centre of Excellence". In English football these terms have distinct meanings and are licensed and regulated by The Football Association and The Football League.[7]

 

It's a lot different than the American system, for sure, but I don't think that makes it worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as there's salary caps, revenue sharing, and a strong league office, it's a non starter.  That only works in an unregulated world, where teams can sign whoever they want to whatever terms they want.  Those teams also act more like private clubs, and play in multiple leagues, go overseas to play other teams from other leagues, and don't have CBAs or other stuff like that to worry about (I think - I really don't know for sure.)

 

Giving the Lakers the chance to sign all the great 13 year olds in the country just wouldn't be good for competitive balance, since everyone would want to play there, unless at that age they're still big fans of their hometown teams and want to stay home (then again, the local talent pool in LA, NY, PHI, Oakland, and other cities very likely far outweighs that of say Milwaukee or OKC, so it likely wouldn't matter.)

 

If you want a system similar to MLB, where kids are drafted out of high school and sent directly to a D league, then OK.

If you want north american sports leagues to decentralize and give the clubs autonomy and turn the league offices into administrative hubs, then OK (though that would take a lot of getting used to.)

If you want a free for all of teams recruiting and corrupting younger and younger kids, then no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the SuperSonics would be better as an NHL team name.  It fits with the players being faster and the speed of the puck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2018 at 5:08 PM, LMU said:

The most likely scenario, despite all the public statements to the contrary, would be if the Clippers' Inglewood arena gets torpedoed by MSG's lawsuit and Ballmer decides to move the team home, especially with the current rebuilt in the post Paul/Blake era and with the Lakers on an upswing.

Even if the Inglewood arena never gets built, there's still no upside to moving from the 2nd-largest market to the 14th-largest market. It's not like the Staples Center is a dump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

Even if the Inglewood arena never gets built, there's still no upside to moving from the 2nd-largest market to the 14th-largest market. It's not like the Staples Center is a dump.

Seattle's a growing market with a bunch of corporate cash and as it is the Clips are third-priority tenants.

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