The_Admiral Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Wow. Never thought I'd see that happen. Kind of a mouthful. No one's ever gonna call it that.Officials have said the nearly 25-year-old Bradley Center is in bad shape.No it isn't. It's in fine shape. It just lacks luxury suites and the upper deck is too big. If the Mecca still maintains structural integrity after all these years, the Bradley Center should be okay. Just be honest about what you really mean. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patsox Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 What a cluster:censored: of a name!Say it...The BMO Harris Bradley Center.Actually it reminds me of what I thought of the horrible original name of the Garden after TD bought the rights..."TD Banknorth Garden", but this is even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDubK414 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Wow. Never thought I'd see that happen. Kind of a mouthful. No one's ever gonna call it that.Officials have said the nearly 25-year-old Bradley Center is in bad shape.No it isn't. It's in fine shape. It just lacks luxury suites and the upper deck is too big. If the Mecca still maintains structural integrity after all these years, the Bradley Center should be okay. Just be honest about what you really mean.Structure wise yes it is, and upgrades are being made all the time. The main issue is the lower seating bowl. The moveable risers are old somewhat falling apart, were installed incorrectly to begin with, and in disrepair. Though we do a good job keeping them in shape, we do need new ones. Also there is a lack of in main building storage. To the casual fan it is a pristine place, but as someone who works there, I know there are tons of improvements that need to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanB06 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 It isn't one of the smallest buildings in the league either. There are, by my count, 11 buildings smaller - and they're all newer arenas at that.So much fail in that story. It's almost as if they're openly lobbying for a new arena. Sodboy13 said: As you watch more basketball, you will learn to appreciate the difference between "defense" and "couldn't find the rim with a pair of bloodhounds and a Garmin." meet the new page, not the same as the old page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Oh, there's no almost about it. It's still not necessary if they can just fix whatever's wrong with the existing place. It'd be silly to raze a perfectly acceptable facility altogether because the movable risers are falling apart. Install new ones.Capacity itself isn't a real issue since the Bucks aren't exactly turning people away. They just want more luxury suites, though again, I don't think they're even selling out the ones they do have. Are they not luxurious enough?Milwaukee doesn't need a new arena and if this reality costs them the Bucks, so be it. So the Bradley Center will cease to be an inadequate NBA venue and continue to be a leading Big East venue. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 What a cluster:censored: of a name!Say it...The BMO Harris Bradley Center.Nobody's ever going to say it. Well, with the exception of the poor announcers. That's a name to attach to a press release, as the fans continue to call it "the Bradley Center".I think it's a decent compromise. If you're going to sell naming rights to an existing building (which I don't think should be done but nobody asked me), then keep enough of the old name that fans can continue to use it in a non-ironic fashion. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH42XCC Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Possible future locations for the Sacramento Kings (if they DO move out of Sacramento):-Anaheim, Calif. (Would be renamed the Anaheim Royals)-Seattle, Wash. (Most likely destination; Seattle Kings, maybe?)-Las Vegas, Nev.-Kansas City, Mo. (Former home city; possible return?)-Cincinnati, Ohio (Another former home city; possible return?)-Vancouver, B.C., Canada (ESPN's Basketball Editor-In-Chief stated that it was the most "viable" location)-Columbus, Ohio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkJourney Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 -Seattle, Wash. (Most likely destination; Seattle Kings, maybe?)More like Seattle SuperSonics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patsox Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 @gothamite just like how most people just call the td garden "the garden" I guess. Haha. It's a mistake on td's and bmo's part I'd say. Silly Canadians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patsox Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Except it was a bigger mistake by td since the bruins/celtics arena hadn't been called the garden in like 10 years at the time they bought the rights.Sorry for the dp. I am in phone #tnAk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 -Seattle, Wash. (Most likely destination; Seattle Kings, maybe?)More like Seattle SuperSonicsIf the Kings end up heading to Seattle I hope they keep the name. The Kings, as the Royals, are one of the oldest teams in the NBA and have kept the regal theme throughout their history. It would be a shame to see them ditch that so they can pretend to be a team they're not. Besides, Seattle is in King County. So it works. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B@ltim0r3R@v3n5 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 kings in my opinon will go to cincy, cincy has an incredible fan base with the bengals and reds, their age demograhics are great for young sports fans to mature under a new sport, however the only problem with the kings gong to cincy is that the cavs, bulls, okc, and pacer's owners will not allow this. with in cincy there is already to many markets and with less of a market for each team someone will complain and no movement will hppen this is the same for seattle only there was less interest at the time when seattle moved to okc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 -Seattle, Wash. (Most likely destination; Seattle Kings, maybe?)More like Seattle SuperSonicsIf the Kings end up heading to Seattle I hope they keep the name. The Kings, as the Royals, are one of the oldest teams in the NBA and have kept the regal theme throughout their history. It would be a shame to see them ditch that so they can pretend to be a team they're not. Besides, Seattle is in King County. So it works.They won't. The Sonics name is being held for any team that moves into Seattle. The Kings would be renamed on arrival per the agreement with the NBA. And would take up the Sonics history as well. Presumably the Kings history would be superseded and end at that point or be folded into the Sonics for some sort of convoluted double history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 "Seattle Kings" sounds good to me, though I'm not sure that the green and yellow scheme works too well (and I would like to see them use that scheme, even though they're not the real Sonics.) "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 kings in my opinon will go to cincy, cincy has an incredible fan base with the bengals and reds, their age demograhics are great for young sports fans to mature under a new sport, however the only problem with the kings gong to cincy is that the cavs, bulls, okc, and pacer's owners will not allow this. with in cincy there is already to many markets and with less of a market for each team someone will complain and no movement will hppen this is the same for seattle only there was less interest at the time when seattle moved to okc.Bolded part: Why would a team in Oklahoma care about whether or not a team moved to Cincinnati, Ohio (for that matter the Bulls wouldn't give a crap either. The Pacers and Cavaliers MIGHT say something, but they might also welcome another close rival.)The bigger problem with Cincinnati is that the local arena is 37 years old.-Seattle, Wash. (Most likely destination; Seattle Kings, maybe?)More like Seattle SuperSonicsIf the Kings end up heading to Seattle I hope they keep the name. The Kings, as the Royals, are one of the oldest teams in the NBA and have kept the regal theme throughout their history. It would be a shame to see them ditch that so they can pretend to be a team they're not. Besides, Seattle is in King County. So it works.They won't. The Sonics name is being held for any team that moves into Seattle. The Kings would be renamed on arrival per the agreement with the NBA. And would take up the Sonics history as well. Presumably the Kings history would be superseded and end at that point or be folded into the Sonics for some sort of convoluted double history.The Sonics name is an option, but they don't HAVE to use it by mandate. They could pull a Rams and acknowledge the local history while maintaining the franchise's. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 The Sonics name is an option, but they don't HAVE to use it by mandate. They could pull a Rams and acknowledge the local history while maintaining the franchise's.?! The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkJourney Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I think it's pretty naive to think that when the NBA returns to Seattle the team won't be called the SuperSonics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 The Sonics name is an option, but they don't HAVE to use it by mandate. They could pull a Rams and acknowledge the local history while maintaining the franchise's.?!The Rams recognize their franchise history and records while honoring former Cardinals and Gunners. The Kings could also have that option. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaytonBlue Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Marv Albert just mentioned the Thunder's 7 playoff wins. If they're keeping the Sonics history and "sharing" it with a potential new Seattle team, this is not correct.This shared history thing won't work. Either the Sonics need to be considered "deactivated" a la Cleveland deal, or the franchise has completely moved to OKC. Then if Seattle gets a new team called SuperSonics, they're related to the first version in name only, a la Jets 2.0. The reason the Sonics name would resurface is because it isn't being used. When the Rams moved to STL, they obviously couldn't adopt the name Cardinals. "I did absolutely nothing and it was everything I thought it could be." -Peter Gibbons RIP Demitra #38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I've also seen Thunder references that include the Sonics' history, usually in on-screen graphics. What will really complicate things is if a new Seattle franchise starts counting from the same point. Say the Thunder win the title and "it's the franchise's second championship." Then down the road the new Seattle Supersonics could also win the franchise's second championship?These deals are messes. Move the history with the franchise. Keep the name, colors and the memories in the city, but nothing else. Fly a banner if you like, but don't pretend it's the same team. If down the road the Thunder/Sonics are winning titles while the Sonics/Kings are still being the Kings... it's almost an insult to the history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.